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 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.
Claim 21:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“one or more computers comprising one or more processors and memory” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements of “responsive to a request to deploy a machine learning executable package configured to generate scores for data points, provision resources to the machine learning executable package;” which is 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").
“a machine learning pipeline service” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
“deploy the machine learning executable package to the provisioned resources” is/are recited at a high-level of generality 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 additional elements of “connect the provisioned resources to a data source comprising data points; “ which is 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").
The additional elements of “execute the machine learning executable package on the provisioned resources as the provisioned resources receive the data points from the data source to produce inference results; and transmit, over a network, the inference results. ” which is 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 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
“one or more computers comprising one or more processors and memory” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements of “responsive to a request to deploy a machine learning executable package configured to generate scores for data points, provision resources to the machine learning executable package;” which is 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").
“a machine learning pipeline service” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
“deploy the machine learning executable package to the provisioned resources” is/are recited at a high-level of generality 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 additional elements of “connect the provisioned resources to a data source comprising data points; “ which is 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").
As discussed above, the additional elements of “execute the machine learning executable package on the provisioned resources as the provisioned resources receive the data points from the data source to produce inference results; and transmit, over a network, the inference results. ”which is 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.
Claim 22:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to receive an indication of a location of the data points, via the request, or via a subsequent indication of an event.” which is 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 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to receive an indication of a location of the data points, via the request, or via a subsequent indication of an event.” which is 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.
Claim 23:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to receive the subsequent indication of event, comprising account credentials or transactions that indicate the location of the data points.” which is 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 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
• As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to receive the subsequent indication of event, comprising account credentials or transactions that indicate the location of the data points.” which is 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.
Claim 24:
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim(s) recite(s) in part:
• “execute the machine learning executable package on the provisioned resources whenever data is available to be processed from the data stream to produce inference results;”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this 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, this limitation encompasses executing a program on a set of resources contingent on whether data is available, to result in inference results. This would be seen as a mental process because a person having ordinary skill of the art would be able to determine if data is available, then execute the program to produce the corresponding inference results.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“the machine learning pipeline service is configured to” is/are recited at a high-level of generality 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))
• As discussed above, the additional elements of “receive an indication of a data stream;.” which is 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 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
“the machine learning pipeline service is configured to” is/are recited at a high-level of generality 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))
• As discussed above, the additional elements of “receive an indication of a data stream;.” which is 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.
Claim 25:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• “wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to provide infrastructure support for deployment of the machine learning pipelines, the infrastructure support including enrichment, transformation and machine learning models for inferencing.” is/are recited at a high-level of generality 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 not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
• “wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to provide infrastructure support for deployment of the machine learning pipelines, the infrastructure support including enrichment, transformation and machine learning models for inferencing.” is/are recited at a high-level of generality 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.
Claim 26:
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim(s) recite(s) in part:
• “and wherein the inference results produced by said executing of the machine learning executable package on the provisioned resources comprise a likelihood that the data points are fraudulent.”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this 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, this limitation encompasses determining an inference score based on a dataset to determine whether a transaction is fraudulent or not. This would be seen as a mental process because a person having ordinary skill of the art would be able to view the data points, generate a score in correspondence to them, then determine whether the transaction is fraudulent or not.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to provide fraud prevention, wherein individual ones of the data points comprise information associated with a customer or transaction,” which is 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 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to provide fraud prevention, wherein individual ones of the data points comprise information associated with a customer or transaction,” which is 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.
Claim 27:
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to receive a results location specified by a user, and transmit the inference results over the network to the results location specified by the user.,” which is 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 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to receive a results location specified by a user, and transmit the inference results over the network to the results location specified by the user.,” which is 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.
Claim 28:
Claim 28 recites similar to claim 21, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Claim 29:
Claim 29 recites similar to claim 22, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Claim 30:
Claim 30 recites similar to claim 23, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Claim 31:
Claim 31 recites similar to claim 24, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Claim 32:
Claim 32 recites similar to claim 25, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Claim 33:
Claim 33 recites similar to claim 26, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Claim 34:
Claim 34 recites similar to claim 27, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Claim 35:
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 35 recites similar abstract ideas to claims 21 and 28, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 36:
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 36 recites similar abstract ideas to claims 22 and 29, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 37:
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 37 recites similar abstract ideas to claims 23 and 30, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 38:
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 38 recites similar to claims 24 and 31, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 39:
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 39 recites similar abstract ideas to claims 27 and 34, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 40:
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 40 recites similar abstract ideas to claims 26 and 33, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
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:
• “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amount to 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicia I exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do '"more than simply state the judicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"'. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21,22,24,27,28,29,31,34, 35, 36, 38, and 39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Faulhaber et. Al, (US10831519B2, referred to as Faulhaber hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21:
A system, comprising: one or more computers comprising one or more processors and memory and configured to implement a machine learning pipeline service configured to: (Faulhaber)[col.23, 35-42]” the model system 800 includes a processing unit 804, a network interface 806, a computer-readable medium drive 807, an input/output device interface 820, all of which may communicate with one another by way of a communication bus.” [Faulhaber](col. 41, 1-4 claim 18) “a machine learning service implemented by a second one or more electronic devices, the machine learning service including instructions that upon execution cause the machine learning service to:” As taught by the claim, Faulhaber teaches of utilizing a machine learning pipeline to execute different instructions to be used as a service. The reference teaches a “machine learning service” implemented by electronic devices with executable instructions is functionally equivalent to the claimed “machine learning pipeline service”. Both are software services running on hardware that manage the machine learning lifecycle. As taught by Faulhaber, the machine learning service handles training deployment and inference.
responsive to a request to deploy a machine learning executable package[Faulhaber](Col.12 15-20)” deployment request and / or an execution request to the model hosting system 140 via the frontend 149 in some embodiments . A deployment request causes the model hosting system 140 to deploy a trained machine learning model into a virtual machine instance 142.”[col. 31, 30-35] “To start the job, the machine learning service 1006 can provision the necessary hardware for the training, pull the container 1012 onto the hardware, orchestrate the startup of the container(s) and communication between them” Faulhaber recites of a user submitting a ‘deployment request’ to the model hosting system, this request causes the model hosting system to deploy a trained machine learning model into a virtual machine instance, thus rendering the claim obvious.
configured to generate scores for data points, [col. 13 lines 55-65]”container 150 in response to the model hosting system 140 receiving the execution request . In particular , execution of the code 156 causes the executable instructions in the code 156 corresponding to the algorithm to read the model data file stored in the ML scoring container 150 , use the input included in the execution request as an input parameter , and generate a corresponding output . As an illustrative example , the algorithm can include coefficients , weights , layers , cluster centroids, and or the like.” Faulhaber teaches of a ‘ML scoring container’. Faulhaber teaches of the scoring container processing input data (data points) by executing the algorithm code with the input as an input parameter to generate corresponding output. The output being a score for the input data, thus rendering the limitation obvious.
provision resources to the machine learning executable package; .”[col. 31, 30-35] “To start the job, the machine learning service 1006 can provision the necessary hardware for the training, pull the container 1012 onto the hardware, orchestrate the startup of the container(s) and communication between them” Faulhaber also teaches of provisioning resources i.e. hardware, that pulls the container onto that hardware, provisioning resources to the executable package.
deploy the machine learning executable package to the provisioned resources; [Faulhaber](Col. 20-21, 62-4) “The virtual machine instance 142 also retrieves a container image from the container data store 170 at ( 5 ).The container image can correspond to a container image identified in the deployment request. The virtual machine instance 142 can initialize an ML scoring container at ( 6 ) in some embodiments . For example, the virtual machine instance 142 can form the ML scoring container using the retrieved container image . The virtual machine instance 142 can further store the model data in the ML scoring container” Faulhaber teaches of deployment in three steps retrieving the container image, initializing the machine learning scoring container from that image, and loading the model data into the container. Together, these steps constitute deploying the executable package to the provisioned resources.
connect the provisioned resources to a data source comprising data points; (Faulhaber)[Col. 13, 44-54]"the user device 102 transmits an execution request to the model hosting system 140 via the frontend 149 , where the execution request identifies an endpoint and includes an input to a machine learning model ( e.g. , a set of input data ) . The model hosting system 140 or another system ( e.g. , a routing system , not shown ) can obtain the execution request , identify the ML scoring container ( s ) 150 corresponding to the identified endpoint , and route the input to the identified ML scoring container ( s ) 150 " The endpoint mechanism connects the provisions resources to incoming data. The endpoint names serve as the connection point between external data sources and the deployed container. When the model hosting system routes input data to the machine learning scoring container via the endpoint, it is functionally connecting the provisioned resources to a data source. The data source provides the data points (input data) that the model will process.
execute the machine learning executable package on the provisioned resources as the provisioned resources receive the data points from the data source to produce inference results; (Faulhaber)[col. 13, 55-65]”In some embodiment’s, a virtual machine instance executes the code 156 stored in an identified ML scoring container 150 in response to the model hosting system 140 receiving the execution request . In particular , execution of the code 156 causes the executable instructions in the code 156 corresponding to the algorithm to read the model data file stored in the ML scoring container 150 , use the input included in the execution request as an input parameter , and generate a corresponding output” Faulhaber directly teaches the execution of a machine learning package on provisioned resources. The virtual machine instance (provisioned resources) executes code (the machine learning executable package) using input data from the execution request (data points from the data source). The “corresponding output” constitutes the inference results. The execution is triggered by receiving data, teaching the limitation ‘provisioned resources receive the data points’.
and transmit, over a network, the inference results. (Faulhaber)[Col.14, 11-14]"the virtual machine instance 142 transmits the output to the user device 102 that submitted the execution result via the frontend 149" As taught by the claim, Faulhaber teaches transmitting an output (inference results) from the virtual machine instance through the frontend to the user device. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art that the output is transmitted over a network, as taught by the claim.
Regarding Claim 22:
The system of claim 21, wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to receive an indication of a location of the data points, via the request, or via a subsequent indication of an event. (Faulhaber)[col. 13, 47-49]" , where the execution request identifies an endpoint and includes an input to a machine learning model ( e.g. , a set of input data )" Faulhaber teaches of receiving an indication of the location of data points either ‘via request’ or ‘via a subsequent indication of an event’. Here, the execution request is the vehicle through which the system learns where the data points are. Input data is either embedded in the request or the request identifies where to find it. This satisfies the ‘via the request’ part of the claim.
Regarding Claim 24:
receive an indication of a data stream; and execute the machine learning executable package on the provisioned resources whenever data is available to be processed from the data stream to produce inference results. (Faulhaber)[col.39, 2-5 Claim 2, and col.41, 14-16 Claim 22]” the training data is provided to the container as one or more files in a first local directory in the container or as one or more input streams accessible within the container;” The reference explicitly teaches providing data to containers as ‘input streams accessible within the container’. An input stream is a data stream. A continuous flow of data that the container processes as it revives. The claim requires executing the machine learning package ‘whenever data is available to be processed from the data stream’, which is the natural behavior of stream processing. The container consumes and processes data as it becomes available in the stream. Although the claim relates to training a model, the same container architecture applies to inference containers (machine learning scoring containers) since they share the same containerization framework.
Regarding Claim 27:
wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to receive a results location specified by a user, and transmit the inference results over the network to the results location specified by the user. (Faulhaber)[col.14, 11-14]” the virtual machine instance 142 transmits the output to the user device 102 that submit ted the execution result via the frontend 149” Faulhaber teaches of two output destinations, the model prediction data store, and the user device via the frontend. The user controls where results go by choosing how to submit the execution request. Additionally, Faulhaber mentions a “third value identifying a storage location where one or more model artifacts… are to be stored” thus demonstrating the pattern of user-specified output locations. Applying this same user-specified location pattern to inference results would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art, within the same system architecture.
Regarding Claim 28:
performing by one or more processors of one or more computing devices (Faulhaber)[Col.39, 50-51]” The computer - implemented method of claim 1 , further comprising” Faulhaber teaches of using the same component taught by the claim.
The remaining limitations of claim 28 recite similarly to claim 21, therefore they are rejected under the same basis in view of Faulhaber.
Regarding Claim 29:
Claim 29 recites similarly to claim 22, therefore it is rejected under the same basis in view of Faulhaber.
Regarding Claim 31:
Claim 31 recites similarly to claim 24, therefore it is rejected under the same basis in view of Faulhaber.
Regarding Claim 34:
Claim 34 recites similarly to claim 27, therefore it is rejected under the same basis in view of Faulhaber.
Regarding Claim 35:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 35, wherein the program instructions, when executed on or across the one or more processors of a machine learning pipeline service, cause the one or more processors to (Faulhaber)[col.23, 55-58] “The memory 810 generally includes RAM , ROM , or other persistent or non - transitory memory . The memory 810 can store an operating system 814 that provides computer program instructions for use by the processing unit” Faulhaber teaches of using the same components taught by the claim, rendering the claim obvious.
The remaining limitations of claim 35 recite similarly to claim 21 and 28, therefore it is rejected under the same basis in view of Faulhaber.
Regarding claim 36:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 35 (Faulhaber)[col.23, 55-58] “The memory 810 generally includes RAM , ROM , or other persistent or non - transitory memory . The memory 810 can store an operating system 814 that provides computer program instructions for use by the processing unit” Faulhaber teaches of using the same components taught by the claim, rendering the claim obvious.
The remaining claims 36 recites similarly to claim 22 and 29, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Regarding claim 36:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 35 (Faulhaber)[col.23, 55-58] “The memory 810 generally includes RAM , ROM , or other persistent or non - transitory memory . The memory 810 can store an operating system 814 that provides computer program instructions for use by the processing unit” Faulhaber teaches of using the same components taught by the claim, rendering the claim obvious.
The remaining claims 36 recites similarly to claim 22 and 29, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Regarding claim 38:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 36 (Faulhaber)[col.23, 55-58] “The memory 810 generally includes RAM , ROM , or other persistent or non - transitory memory . The memory 810 can store an operating system 814 that provides computer program instructions for use by the processing unit” Faulhaber teaches of using the same components taught by the claim, rendering the claim obvious.
The remaining claims 38 recites similarly to claim 24 and 31, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Regarding claim 39:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 36 (Faulhaber)[col.23, 55-58] “The memory 810 generally includes RAM , ROM , or other persistent or non - transitory memory . The memory 810 can store an operating system 814 that provides computer program instructions for use by the processing unit” Faulhaber teaches of using the same components taught by the claim, rendering the claim obvious.
The remaining claims 39 recites similarly to claim 27 and 34, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 23, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 34, 37, and 40 are rejected in view of Faulhaber, and in further view of Kumar et, al. (US10977654B2, referred to as Kumar hereinafter).
Regarding claim 23:
Kumar teaches:
wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to receive the subsequent indication of event, comprising account credentials or transactions that indicate the location of the data points. (Kumar)[col. 5, 25-36]” the user / account past transaction information and / or the merchant transaction information may be preprocessed so that user clusters and transactions per vertical for the user. Such rules or weights may provide different factors to data when determining the score so that certain account or location data for a transaction a vertical is more or less likely to be fraudulent.” Kumar teaches of the user or account holders past transaction information history to indicate a location of where the purchase was made. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art that account credentials would also have to be considered when determining a user’s location, rendering the claim obvious.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the containerization machine learning process as taught by Faulhaber with the fraud detection process as taught by Kumar. A person having ordinary skill of the art would be motivated to do this to utilize one or more risk rules with a risk assessment engine to determine transaction processing risk and whether to proceed with transaction processing(Kumar)[Abstract].
Regarding claim 25:
Faulhaber teaches:
wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to provide infrastructure support for deployment of the machine learning pipelines, (Faulhaber)[col. 14, 15-17]“ the ML scoring container 150 can transmit the output to a second ML scoring container 150 initialized in the same virtual machine instance 142 or in a different virtual machine instance 142.”
However, Faulhaber fails to teach:
the infrastructure support including enrichment, transformation
However, Kumar teaches:
the infrastructure support including enrichment, transformation (Kumar)[col.4-5 lines 66-5]” Multiple features are derived from user's transaction data to create input features for the k-means algorithm. These input features may include user location, transaction location (e.g., state, country, etc. of seller), transaction count in each vertical, and temporal proximity of transactions. The temporal proximity may be determined by calculating the average time difference between each of a user's two consecutive transactions. ”Kumar teaches data transformation, converting transaction records into engineered features (user location, transaction location, transaction counts per vertical, temporal proximity scores, cluster IDs.) This feature engineering is transforming the data into numerical features as taught by the claim, which are then used to train the model.
Faulhaber also teaches:
and machine learning models for inferencing. (Faulhaber)[col.13 55-63]” In some embodiments, a virtual machine instance 142 executes the code 156 stored in an identified ML scoring container 150 in response to the model hosting system 140 receiving the execution request. In particular, execution of the code 156 causes the executable instructions in the code 156 corresponding to the algorithm to read the model data file stored in the ML scoring container 150, use the input included in the execution request as an input parameter, and generate a corresponding output.” Faulhaber teaches the infrastructure used for machine learning model inferencing. The machine learning scoring container contains both the algorithm code and model data, and executes inference by processing input data to generate output predictions. The model hosting system provides all of the infrastructure needed to support machine learning models for inferencing.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the inferencing infrastructure taught by Faulhaber with the data transformation taught by Kumar. A person having ordinary skill of the art would be motivated to do this to utilize one or more risk rules with a risk assessment engine to determine transaction processing risk and whether to proceed with transaction processing(Kumar)[Abstract].
Regarding claim 26:
Kumar teaches:
wherein the machine learning pipeline service is configured to provide fraud prevention, wherein individual ones of the data points comprise information associated with a customer or transaction, and wherein the inference results produced by said executing of the machine learning executable package on the provisioned resources comprise a likelihood that the data points are fraudulent. (Kumar)[col. 5, 25-36]” the user / account past transaction information and / or the merchant transaction information may be preprocessed so that user clusters and transactions per vertical for the user… . Such rules or weights may provide different factors to data when determining the score so that certain account or location data for a transaction a vertical is more or less likely to be fraudulent .” As taught by the claim, Kumar teaches of calculating a score based on prior data points to determine the likeliness of a fraudulent purchase.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art to combine the containerization machine learning process as taught by Faulhaber with the fraud detection process as taught by Kumar. A person having ordinary skill of the art would be motivated to do this to utilize one or more risk rules with a risk assessment engine to determine transaction processing risk and whether to proceed with transaction processing(Kumar)[Abstract].
Regarding claim 30
Claim 30 recites similarly to claim 23, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Regarding claim 32
Claim 32 recites similarly to claim 25, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Regarding claim 33
Claim 33 recites similarly to claim 26, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Regarding claim 37
Faulhaber teaches:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 36, wherein: (Faulhaber)[col.23, 55-58] “The memory 810 generally includes RAM , ROM , or other persistent or non - transitory memory . The memory 810 can store an operating system 814 that provides computer program instructions for use by the processing unit” Faulhaber teaches of using the same components taught by the claim, rendering the claim obvious.
The remaining limitations of claim 37 recites similarly to claims 23 and 30, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Regarding claim 40
Faulhaber teaches:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 35, wherein: (Faulhaber)[col.23, 55-58] “The memory 810 generally includes RAM , ROM , or other persistent or non - transitory memory . The memory 810 can store an operating system 814 that provides computer program instructions for use by the processing unit” Faulhaber teaches of using the same components taught by the claim, rendering the claim obvious.
The remaining claims 40 recites similarly to claim 26 and 33, therefore it is rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYAAN AYAZ SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-4643. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 7:30-5pm.
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, 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.
/AYAAN AYAZ SHEIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights