DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium including executable instructions, the instructions being executable by a processor to perform a method, the method comprising: receiving initial data points, the initial data points including rows and columns, each row defining a data point of an initial data set and each column defining a feature, the initial data set including an initial number of columns, each column including values associated with a feature of a plurality of features; clustering the initial data points into subsets based on distances between the initial data points within a cover into a plurality of subsets; selecting a subset of the plurality of subsets to create a set of selected data; for each selected data point of the set of selected data points, determining a predetermined number of other data points of the set of selected data points that are closest in distance to that particular selected data point, the distance being determined based on a metric function between a vector of each data point; grouping the selected data points into a plurality of groups based, at least in part, on the predetermined number of other data points of the set of selected data points that are closest in distance, each group of the plurality of groups including a different subset of data points; and applying selected data points and the plurality of groups as training data to create a machine learning module, the selected data points and the plurality of groups maintaining shape and relationships within the initial data points, the selected data points being less than the initial data points”.
The limitations of “set of selected data points, determining a predetermined number of other data points of the set of selected data points that are closest in distance to that particular selected data point, the distance being determined based on a metric function between a vector of each data point; grouping the selected data points into a plurality of groups based, at least in part, on the predetermined number of other data points of the set of selected data points that are closest in distance, each group of the plurality of groups including a different subset of data points;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “a processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “processor” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “a processor” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “receiving initial data points, the initial data points including rows and columns, each row defining a data point of an initial data set and each column defining a feature, the initial data set including an initial number of columns, each column including values associated with a feature of a plurality of features” that is the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “and applying selected data points and the plurality of groups as training data to create a machine learning module, the selected data points and the plurality of groups maintaining shape and relationships within the initial data points, the selected data points being less than the initial data points” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “a processor” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “receiving initial data points, the initial data points including rows and columns, each row defining a data point of an initial data set and each column defining a feature, the initial data set including an initial number of columns, each column including values associated with a feature of a plurality of features” that is the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “and applying selected data points and the plurality of groups as training data to create a machine learning module, the selected data points and the plurality of groups maintaining shape and relationships within the initial data points, the selected data points being less than the initial data points” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Neither mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, nor mere instructions to apply an exception can provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “creating a first transformation data set, the first transformation data set including the selected data points as well as a plurality of feature subsets, each of the plurality of feature subsets being associated with at least one group of the plurality of groups, values of a particular data point for a particular feature subset for a particular group being based on values of the particular data point in the selected data points if the particular data point is a member of the particular group; an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “creating a second transformation data set, the second transformation data set including the first transformation data set as well as the plurality of feature subsets, each of the plurality of feature subsets being associated with the at least one group of the plurality of groups, values of a particular data point for a particular feature subset for a particular group being based on values of the particular data point in the selected data points if the particular data point is a member of the particular groupalso MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional element of “applying the prediction model to the second transformation data set to generate predicted outcomes” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “comparing the predicted outcomes to known outcomes to assess a quality of the prediction model”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the cover is created by application of one or more functions on the initial data points”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the cover is generated by: generating a reference space; mapping the data points of training data into the reference space using at least one filter; generating the cover based on a resolution; and clustering data in the cover based on a metric and data points of the training data set to create the plurality of data sets”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “values of a particular data point for a particular feature subset for a particular group are zero if the particular data point of a training data set is not a member of the particular group”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “values of a particular data point for a particular feature subset for a particular group are null if the particular data point of a training data set is not a member of the particular group”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the values of a particular data point for a particular feature subset for a particular group of which the particular data point is a member are weighted”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “weighting of the values for the particular data point at least partially depend on how many the plurality of groups the particular data point is a member of”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the machine learning model is selected from a group consisting of a linear regression machine learning model, a polynomial regression machine learning model, a logistic regression machine learning model, and a random forest machine learning model”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “generating a reference space; mapping the selected data points into the reference space using at least one filter function; generating the cover based on a resolution; and the clustering including clustering the initial data in the cover based on a metric function and selected data points to identify at least one of the plurality of data sets”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method comprising: receiving initial data points, the initial data points including rows and columns, each row defining a data point of an initial data set and each column defining a feature, the initial data set including an initial number of columns, each column including values associated with a feature of a plurality of features; clustering the initial data points into subsets based on distances between the initial data points within a cover into a plurality of subsets; selecting a subset of the plurality of subsets to create a set of selected data points; for each selected data point of the set of selected data points, determining a predetermined number of other data points of the set of selected data points that are closest in distance to that particular selected data point, the distance being determined based on a metric function between a vector of each data point; grouping the selected data points into a plurality of groups based, at least in part, on the predetermined number of other data points of the set of selected data points that are closest in distance, each group of the plurality of groups including a different subset of data points; and applying selected data points and the plurality of groups as training data to create a machine learning module, the selected data points and the plurality of groups maintaining shape and relationships within the initial data points, the selected data points being less than the initial data points”.
The limitations of “A method comprising: selected data points that are closest in distance, each group of the plurality of groups including a different subset of data points;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “receiving initial data points, the initial data points including rows and columns, each row defining a data point of an initial data set and each column defining a feature, the initial data set including an initial number of columns, each column including values associated with a feature of a plurality of features” that is the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “and applying selected data points and the plurality of groups as training data to create a machine learning module, the selected data points and the plurality of groups maintaining shape and relationships within the initial data points, the selected data points being less than the initial data points” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional element of “receiving initial data points, the initial data points including rows and columns, each row defining a data point of an initial data set and each column defining a feature, the initial data set including an initial number of columns, each column including values associated with a feature of a plurality of features” that is the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “and applying selected data points and the plurality of groups as training data to create a machine learning module, the selected data points and the plurality of groups maintaining shape and relationships within the initial data points, the selected data points being less than the initial data points” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Neither insignificant extra-solution activity nor instructions to apply an exception can provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “creating a first transformation data set, the first transformation data set including the selected data points as well as a plurality of feature subsets, each of the plurality of feature subsets being associated with at least one group of the plurality of groups, values of a particular data point for a particular feature subset for a particular group being based on values of the particular data point in the selected data points if the particular data point is a member of the particular group; it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “creating a second transformation data set, the second transformation data set including the first transformation data set as well as the plurality of feature subsets, each of the plurality of feature subsets being associated with the at least one group of the plurality of groups, values of a particular data point for a particular feature subset for a particular group being based on values of the particular data point in the selected data points if the particular data point is a member of the particular group; broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional element of “applying the prediction model to the second transformation data set to generate predicted outcomes” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “comparing the predicted outcomes to known outcomes to assess a quality of the prediction model”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the cover is created by application of one or more functions on the initial data points”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory, the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor to perform steps of: receiving initial data points, the initial data points including rows and columns, each row defining a data point of an initial data set and each column defining a feature, the initial data set including an initial number of columns, each column including values associated with a feature of a plurality of features; clustering the initial data points into subsets based on distances between the initial data points within a cover into a plurality of subsets; selecting a subset of the plurality of subsets to create a set of selected data points; for each selected data point of the set of selected data points, determining a predetermined number of other data points of the set of selected data points that are closest in distance to that particular selected data point, the distance being determined based on a metric function between a vector of each data point; grouping the selected data points into a plurality of groups based, at least in part, on the predetermined number of other data points of the set of selected data points that are closest in distance, each group of the plurality of groups including a different subset of data points; and applying selected data points and the plurality of groups as training data to create a machine learning module, the selected data points and the plurality of groups maintaining shape and relationships within the initial data points, the selected data points being less than the initial data points”.
The limitations of “data points that are closest in distance, each group of the plurality of groups including a different subset of data points;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a system”, “a processor” and “a memory” to perform the claimed steps. The “system”, “processor” and “memory” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a system”, “a processor” and “a memory” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “receiving initial data points, the initial data points including rows and columns, each row defining a data point of an initial data set and each column defining a feature, the initial data set including an initial number of columns, each column including values associated with a feature of a plurality of features” that is the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “and applying selected data points and the plurality of groups as training data to create a machine learning module, the selected data points and the plurality of groups maintaining shape and relationships within the initial data points, the selected data points being less than the initial data points” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a system”, “a processor” and “a memory” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “receiving initial data points, the initial data points including rows and columns, each row defining a data point of an initial data set and each column defining a feature, the initial data set including an initial number of columns, each column including values associated with a feature of a plurality of features” that is the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “and applying selected data points and the plurality of groups as training data to create a machine learning module, the selected data points and the plurality of groups maintaining shape and relationships within the initial data points, the selected data points being less than the initial data points” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Neither mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, nor mere instructions to apply an exception can provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite "concepts performed in the human mind" like "observation, evaluation, judgement, [or] opinion" and that the “claimed subject matter is not a concept that can be performed in a human mind with practicality” because “the claimed subject matter is performed by a computer platform due to the nature of the technology” and “similar to that when working with AI” the receiving, clustering, determining, and grouping are all “impractical mentally” (see applicant arguments, page 10). However, it is not clear how these steps are similar to working with AI and the applicant has provided no evidence so support such a position. With respect to the “receiving” step, the rejections of record did not identify this step as a mental process but as the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering that can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). With respect to the remaining clustering, determining, and grouping steps the applicant argument that “the claimed subject matter is performed by a computer platform due to the nature of the technology” is not convincing since any use of a computer or computer platform in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “a processor” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. A person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform the clustering, determining, and grouping steps and the applicant has provided no evidence besides blanket statements that merely repeat the claim language and therefore these arguments are not convincing.
The applicant further argues that “claim 1 recites a series of specific computational steps that operate on structured data and transform that data into a reduced yet relationally representative training dataset” and that the additional elements include the receiving, clustering, selecting, determining, grouping, and applying steps and that “the claim language itself provides this integration” because “the claimed steps collectively improve the functioning of a computer in the manner contemplated by MPEP 2106.05(a), because they change how a computer processes, stores, and utilizes data for machine learning”. (applicant arguments, pages 10-11). However, as answered previously, the receiving step is an additional element but the other steps (i.e. the clustering, selecting, determining, grouping, and applying steps) are abstract ideas. While the applicant argues that the steps “collectively improve the functioning of a computer”, the requirements of the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, Prong Two, are that an evaluation of the additional elements individually and in combination shows how the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The applicant has not shown how the additional elements of receiving and the use of generic computer components integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Since the applicant has not shown how the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as required under Step 2A, Prong Two, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that:
the step of "clustering the initial data points into subsets based on distances ... within a cover" imposes a structured partitioning of the data space. This operation reduces the effective computational domain by organizing data into bounded subsets defined by distance relationships. The subsequent step of "selecting a subset of the plurality of subsets" further reduces the volume of data to be processed. This is not a mere abstraction, but a concrete limitation that defines a smaller working dataset that is processed by the computer, thereby reducing memory usage and processing requirements. The step of determining a predetermined number of nearest data points using a metric function establishes a localized neighborhood structure within the reduced dataset. This operation ensures that relational properties of the original dataset are preserved based on defined distance relationships. The grouping step uses these nearest-neighbor relationships to form groups that encode the structure of the original data within the reduced dataset. This is a specific computational mechanism that preserves "shape and relationships" as recited in the claim, rather than a mere statement of a desired result. Finally, the step of applying the selected data points and groups as training data-where the dataset is explicitly "less than the initial data points" while "maintaining shape and relationships"-results in a modified machine learning training process. The computer operates on a reduced dataset that retains meaningful structure, thereby enabling reduced memory consumption, reduced computational complexity, and execution of training operations that would otherwise be infeasible given system constraints.
Importantly, the claims do not merely recite the result of improving efficiency or scalability. Instead, they recite specific computational steps, including clustering within a cover, nearest-neighbor determination using a metric function, and grouping based on those relationships. These elements together achieve the stated improvement. As a result, the claims define a particular technological solution for reducing dataset size while preserving relational structure, rather than claiming a generalized or result-oriented concept.
When considered as an ordered combination, the elements recited in claim 1 apply any alleged abstract idea in a manner that is integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claims elements transform an initial dataset into a reduced dataset having preserved relational characteristics, alter how a computer processes and trains on data, and provide a concrete technological improvement in data handling for machine learning systems.
Accordingly, the claims do not merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, but instead improve the operation of the computer itself by enabling efficient processing of large datasets.
(see applicant arguments, pages 11-12)
However, all of the argued steps are abstract ideas and it is important to note that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements (see MPEP 2106.05(a)) and showing how they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as required under Step 2A, Prong Two. Any use of a computer is merely applying generic computer components to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Jay A Morrison/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights