Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim’s 2-6 and 16-20 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 says "a non-transitory computer-readable medium". Claim's 2-6 only says "a computer readable medium". Claim 15 says "a non-transitory computer-readable medium". Claim's 16-20 only says "a computer readable medium" also recites.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, The use of the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, implies that it does not take into account the method that is described in claim 1 and instead is just accessing a non-transitory computer-readable medium that happens to have parameters. To expedite prosecution, claim 7 will be interpreted as an independent claim since it is not reliant on the method described in claim 1.
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 1-20 are rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1
Step 1: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater).
Step 2A Prong 1: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing parameter for a constraint prediction model, wherein the parameters for the constraint prediction model are produced by a process comprising:
wherein each constraint prediction indicates a predicted likelihood that the interaction of the corresponding training example complies with the set of constraints is a mental process that can be done with the aid of pen and paper, a person can pass judgement on the likelihood on whether or not a interaction complied with a set of constraints
Accessing action logs from an online system that describe actions taken by users of the online system to determine whether interactions of the plurality of training examples comply with the set of constraints; is a mental process that can be done with the aid of pen and paper, a person can look at and determine if a user is complying with a set of restrictions
Computing an action score for each training example of the plurality of training examples based on the action logs, wherein each score represents a number of actions taken by operators of the online system to determine whether the interaction of the corresponding training example complies with the set of constraints; Is a mathematical concept
Computing a loss score for each of the plurality of training examples by applying an action-based loss function to the constraint prediction, action score, and label for each of the plurality of training examples; Is a mathematical concept – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)
through a backpropagation process using the computed loss scores for the plurality of training examples is a mathematical concept – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional limitations initializing a set of parameters for the…is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept – see MPEP 2106.05(g) Examiner’s note: initializing a set of parameters doesn’t amount an anything more than selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated
constraint prediction model is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “constraint prediction model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d);
Accessing training data …, wherein the training data comprises a plurality of training examples, wherein each training example of the plurality of training examples comprises: interaction data describing an interaction of a user with…is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept Examiners note: interaction data describing user interactions amounts to nothing more than mere data gathering
a third-party system Is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2);
and a label for the training example that indicates whether the interaction of the user with …complies with a set of constraints is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept – see MPEP 2106.05(g) Examiner’s note: Labeling data in an example to see if it falls under a transaction or not would amount to nothing more than mere data gathering
initializing a set of parameters …; is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept Examiners note: initializing a set of parameters amounts to nothing more than selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated
Applying …to the interaction data of each training example of the plurality of training examples to generate a set of constraint predictions for the plurality of training examples, the limitation “constraint prediction model” are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “constraint prediction model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d) Examiner’s note: high level recitation of applying a model to data
Updating the set of parameters … the limitation “constraint prediction model” are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “constraint prediction model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Storing a final set of parameters … to the computer-readable medium is a process that doesn’t add anything significantly more to the abstract idea beyond just applying a generic computer method to the abstract idea– see MPEP 2106.05(f) Examiner’s note: high level recitation of storing parameters on a CRM
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination with other limitations of the claim, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional limitations initializing a set of parameters for the…is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept – see MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Examiner’s note: initializing a set of parameters doesn’t amount an anything more than selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated
constraint prediction model is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “constraint prediction model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d);
Accessing training data …, wherein the training data comprises a plurality of training examples, wherein each training example of the plurality of training examples comprises: interaction data describing an interaction of a user with…is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept – see MPEP 2106.06(g) Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Examiners note: interaction data describing user interactions amounts to nothing more than mere data gathering
a third-party system Is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2);
and a label for the training example that indicates whether the interaction of the user with …complies with a set of constraints is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept – see MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Examiner’s note: Labeling data in an example to see if it falls under a transaction or not would amount to nothing more than mere data gathering
initializing a set of parameters …; is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Examiners note: initializing a set of parameters amounts to nothing more than selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated
Applying …to the interaction data of each training example of the plurality of training examples to generate a set of constraint predictions for the plurality of training examples, the limitation “ prediction model” are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “constraint prediction model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d) Examiner’s note: high level recitation of applying a model to data
Updating the set of parameters … the limitation “prediction model” are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “constraint prediction model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Storing a final set of parameters … to the computer-readable medium is a process that doesn’t add anything significantly more to the abstract idea beyond just applying a generic computer method to the abstract idea– see MPEP 2106.05(f) Examiner’s note: high level recitation of storing parameters on a CRM
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 1: “computer-readable medium” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: Recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional limitation wherein the…comprises a neural network with a plurality of layers, wherein the plurality of layers comprises an input layer, a set of intermediate layers, and an output layer, wherein the input layer is connected to the set of intermediate layers, and the set of intermediate layers are connected to the output layer, and wherein applying the…to the interaction data of a training example comprises: inputting, to the input layer, a feature vector associated with the interaction data of the training data; The additional elements amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “AI system” or “machine learning” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d). Examiner’s note: high level recitation of inputting a vector into a input layer associated with a model
Receiving a constraint prediction from the output layer is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept – see MPEP 2106.05(g) Examiner’s note: receiving a constraint prediction here amounts to nothing more than mere data
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination with other limitations of the claim, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional limitation wherein the…comprises a neural network with a plurality of layers, wherein the plurality of layers comprises an input layer, a set of intermediate layers, and an output layer, wherein the input layer is connected to the set of intermediate layers, and the set of intermediate layers are connected to the output layer, and wherein applying the…to the interaction data of a training example comprises: inputting, to the input layer, a feature vector associated with the interaction data of the training data; The additional elements amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “AI system” or “machine learning” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d). Examiner’s note: high level recitation of inputting a vector into an input layer associated with a model
Receiving a constraint prediction from the output layer is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept – see MPEP 2106.05(g) Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Examiner’s note: receiving a constraint prediction here amounts to nothing more than mere data
Regarding Claim 3
Step 1: “computer-readable medium” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: identifying a set of actions described in the action logs that are associated with the interaction associated with the interaction data of the training example is an abstract idea that can be done with the aid of pen and paper, a person can identify actions in logs
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such, the claim is patent ineligible.
Regarding Claim 4
Step 1: “computer-readable medium” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: assigning a score to each action of the identified set of actions; is a mental process that can be done with the aid of pen and paper, a person can assign a score to different actions
Computing an aggregated score based on the assigned scores is a mathematical concept
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such, the claim is patent ineligible.
Regarding Claim 5
Step 1: “computer-readable medium” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: computing a weighted sum based on the constrained prediction and the action score is a mathematical concept
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such, the claim is patent ineligible.
Regarding Claim 6
Step 1: “computer-readable medium” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: receiving interaction data from a third-party system describing an interaction of the user with the third-party system is an abstract idea that can be done with the aid of pen and paper, a person can receive data from a third party system.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such, the claim is patent ineligible.
Regarding Claim 7
Step 1: “A method” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: receiving interaction data from a third-party system describing an interaction of the user with…; is an abstract idea that can be done with the aid of pen and paper, a person can receive data from a third party system
Step 2A Prong 2: applying.…to the interaction data by accessing parameters for.…stored by the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1; with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2). Examiner’s note: high level recitation of applying a model to data
and predicting whether the interaction complies with a set of constraints based on the application of..…to the interaction data are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “AI system” or “machine learning” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d). Examiner’s note: high level recitation of using a model to see if an interaction complies with a set of rules
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination with other limitations of the claim, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. applying.…to the interaction data by accessing parameters for.…stored by the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1; with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2). Examiner’s note: high level recitation of applying a model to data
and predicting whether the interaction complies with a set of constraints based on the application of..…to the interaction data are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “AI system” or “machine learning” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d). Examiner’s note: high level recitation of using a model to see if an interaction complies with a set of rules
Regarding Claim 8
Step 1: “A method” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: See the analysis of Claim 1
Step 2A Prong 2: See the analysis of Claim 1
Step 2B: See the analysis of Claim 1
Regarding Claim 9
Step 1: “The method” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: See the analysis of Claim 2
Step 2A Prong 2: See the analysis of Claim 2
Step 2B: See the analysis of Claim 2
Regarding Claim 10
Step 1: “The method” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: See the analysis of Claim 3
Step 2A Prong 2: See the analysis of Claim 3
Step 2B: See the analysis of Claim 3
Regarding Claim 11
Step 1: “The method” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: See the analysis of Claim 4
Step 2A Prong 2: See the analysis of Claim 4
Step 2B: See the analysis of Claim 4
Regarding Claim 12
Step 1: “The method” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: See the analysis of Claim 5
Step 2A Prong 2: See the analysis of Claim 5
Step 2B: See the analysis of Claim 5
Regarding Claim 13
Step 1: “The method” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: See the analysis of Claim 6
Step 2A Prong 2: See the analysis of Claim 6
Step 2B: See the analysis of Claim 6
Regarding Claim 14
Step 1: “The method” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: See the analysis of Claim 7
Step 2A Prong 2: See the analysis of Claim 7
Step 2B: See the analysis of Claim 7
Regarding Claim 15
Step 1: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: See the analysis of Claim 1
Step 2A Prong 2: See the analysis of Claim 1
Step 2B: See the analysis of Claim 1
Regarding Claim 16
Step 1: “The computer-readable medium” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: See the analysis of Claim 2
Step 2A Prong 2: See the analysis of Claim 2
Step 2B: See the analysis of Claim 2
Regarding Claim 17
Step 1: “The computer-readable medium” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: See the analysis of Claim 3
Step 2A Prong 2: See the analysis of Claim 3
Step 2B: See the analysis of Claim 3
Regarding Claim 18
Step 1: “The computer-readable medium” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: See the analysis of Claim 4
Step 2A Prong 2: See the analysis of Claim 4
Step 2B: See the analysis of Claim 4
Regarding Claim 19
Step 1: “The computer-readable medium” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: See the analysis of Claim 5
Step 2A Prong 2: See the analysis of Claim 5
Step 2B: See the analysis of Claim 5
Regarding Claim 20
Step 1: “The computer-readable medium” falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater
Step 2A Prong 1: See the analysis of Claim 6
Step 2A Prong 2: See the analysis of Claim 6
Step 2B: See the analysis of Claim 6
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim (7) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eliza et al (US 11610205 B1) (“Eliza”)
Regarding Claim 7, Eliza teaches a method comprising: receiving interaction data from a third-party system describing an interaction of the user with the third-party system ([Column 1: Lines 28 to 31] teaches obtaining data from an atm based on withdrawal transactions)
Applying a constraint prediction model to the interaction data by accessing parameters for the constraint prediction model stored by the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1 ([Column 1: Lines 32 to 37] teaches analyzing the transaction data to determine the likelihood that the withdrawals were fraudulent or not with the help of a machine learning model)
And predicting whether the interaction complies with a set of constraints based on the application of the constraint prediction model to the interaction data. ([Column 10: lines 3 to 27] describes a fraud analysis circuit that calculates the probability that a transaction is fraudulent with the higher the percentage pointing towards the higher likelihood that it is fraudulent. The constraint here being if the transaction is fraudulent or not)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim’s 1-6 and 8-20 allowed. But the 101 rejections still maintain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URIAH V MOORE whose telephone number is (571)384-8341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Mariela Reyes can be reached at (571)270-1006. 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.
/URIAH VENDELL MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2142
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights