DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 31, and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claims 21, 31, and 40, the limitations “generalizing the base model based on the set portion of each of the plurality of nodes to have the predetermined weight” should be changed to -- updating the base model based on the set portion of each of the plurality of nodes to have the predetermined weight” should be changed to --
As to claims 27 and 36, the limitations “restoring to the base model the one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes from the base model” should be changed to -- restoring to the base model the one or more removed nodes from the base model --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a computer-implemented method (claims 21-30 and 40) and a computer system with structural components (claims 31-39). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claims 21,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
grouping data objects of a first training set into a plurality of clusters;
determining a performance of the base model without a random subset of existing nodes of the plurality of nodes of the base model;
generalizing the base model to obtain a generalized base model, wherein
generalizing the base model includes:
setting a portion of each of the plurality of nodes to have a predetermined weight based on the determined performance of the base model; and
generalizing the base model based on the set portion of each of the plurality of nodes to have the predetermined weight;
determining that the first cluster is, out of the plurality clusters, most similar to a second training set;
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example: (1) A human can group data into clusters based on their similarities using a pencil and paper. (2) One way a human can determine the performance of a model is by measuring the accuracy and determine if an accuracy metric is higher or lower than a predetermined threshold. (3) If the accuracy metric is above the predetermined threshold, a human can assign the same exact weight to half (set portion) of the plurality of nodes. (4) A human can compare a first cluster and a second training set to determine if the two are same category (similar).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
training a base model using a first cluster of the plurality of clusters, the base model being a neural network having a plurality of nodes;
training the generalized base model using the second training set to obtain a trained model.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
training a base model using a first cluster of the plurality of clusters, the base model being a neural network having a plurality of nodes;
training the generalized base model using the second training set to obtain a trained model.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The recitation of a base model amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 22,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
predetermined weight is set based on determining that removal of the random subset of existing nodes does not substantially affect accuracy of the base model.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example: A human could look at the effect that removing a set of node has on the accuracy of the model and set a weight accordingly.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 23,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified in claim 21 above
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the predetermined weight is set for each of the plurality of nodes
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
the predetermined weight is set for each of the plurality of nodes
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 24,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified in claim 21 above
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the predetermined weight is set for at least one of the plurality of nodes
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
the predetermined weight is set for at least one of the plurality of nodes
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 25,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified in claim 21 above
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the predetermined weight is zero
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
the predetermined weight is zero
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 26,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the same abstract ideas identified in claim 21 above
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the base model is further trained using the predetermined weight for the plurality of nodes
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
wherein the base model is further trained using the predetermined weight for the plurality of nodes
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
As to claims 27,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified in claim 21 above
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the predetermined weight is set by:
pruning the base model to remove one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes from the base model;
restoring to the base model the one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes from the base model; and
setting the one or more nodes restored in the restoring to have a predetermined weight.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
the predetermined weight is set by:
pruning the base model to remove one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes from the base model;
restoring to the base model the one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes from the base model; and
setting the one or more nodes restored in the restoring to have a predetermined weight.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 28,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified in claim 21 above
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
each of the one or more restored nodes has an output
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
each of the one or more restored nodes has an output
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 29,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified in claim 21 above
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the output of each of the one or more restored nodes has a predetermined weight
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
the output of each of the one or more restored nodes has a predetermined weight
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 30,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
setting a portion of each of the plurality of nodes to have a random weight based on the determined performance of the base model
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human can determine what weight to assign each node.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
Claim 31 has similar limitations as claim 21. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The claim further recites a memory and one or more processors which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 32 has similar limitations as claim 22. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 33 has similar limitations as claim 24. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 34 has similar limitations as claim 25. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 35 has similar limitations as claim 26. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 36 has similar limitations as claim 27. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 37 has similar limitations as claim 28. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 38 has similar limitations as claim 29. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 39 has similar limitations as claim 30. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 40 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ozetem et al (US 2019/0266483) teaches techniques to de-correlate classifiers (e.g., render them neutral) to certain target groups. Classifiers can, for example, determine the intent of content (e.g., shopping, news, etc.), flag target content, etc. Sometimes, these classification categories may be incorrectly associated with certain types, groups, characteristics, etc. Exemplary embodiments retrain a classifier's model in an adversarial manner to render it no better than chance at detecting whether content originated from an entity embodying a target type, group, characteristic, etc.
Ozetem et al does not disclose or suggest obvious determining a performance of the base model without a random subset of existing nodes of the plurality of nodes of the base model; generalizing the base model to obtain a generalized base model, wherein generalizing the base model includes: setting a portion of each of the plurality of nodes to have a predetermined weight based on the determined performance of the base model; and generalizing the base model based on the set portion of each of the
plurality of nodes to have the predetermined weight; determining that the first cluster is, out of the plurality clusters, most similar to a second training set; and training the generalized base model using the second training set to obtain a trained model, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128