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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“…collecting initial training data from a database; selecting featured training data from the initial training data useful for predicting runtimes; building a machine learning model for predicting the runtimes based on the featured training data; measuring a loss and an accuracy of the machine learning model; performing standardization and/or normalization on the featured training data of the training data to generate updated training data if the loss and/or the accuracy fails to meet predefined criteria; performing dimensionality reduction on the updated training data to generate reduced training data; performing clustering at least once on the reduced training data to generate clustered training data; identifying at least one outlier from the clustered training data; removing the at least one outlier to generate filtered training data;”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are 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). The additional element of “A machine learning-based synthesis runtime prediction method, comprising… and preprocessing, training and testing the machine learning model based on the filtered training data until the loss and the accuracy meet the predefined criteria.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein a piece of the clustered training data is identified as an outlier when a difference between a predicted runtime of the piece of the clustered training data and a real runtime of the piece of the clustered training data is greater than a threshold.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 3
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein a piece of the clustered training data is identified as an outlier if the piece of the clustered training data is far away from remaining clustered training data.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 4
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are 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). The additional element of “wherein building the machine learning model for predicting the runtimes based on the clustered training data is building an ElasticNet model, an eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model, or a deep neural network (DNN) model for predicting the runtimes based on the clustered training data.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein selecting the featured training data from the initial training data useful for predicting the runtimes is selecting the featured training data from the initial training data useful for predicting the runtimes based on a Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) analysis, an XGBoost’s feature importance analysis, or other analysis methods.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 6
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are 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). The additional element of “wherein building the machine learning model for predicting the runtimes based on the featured training data is building the machine learning model for predicting the runtimes based on the featured training data using a log or exponential function.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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.
Regarding claim 7
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein measuring the loss and the accuracy of …. model by computing a Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC), a mean square error (MSE), and a root mean square error (RMSE) according to predicted runtimes.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are 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). The additional element of “the machine learning model is measuring the loss and the accuracy of the machine learning”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are 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). The additional element of “further comprising merging the machine learning model with at least another machine learning model.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are 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). The additional element of “wherein performing dimensionality reduction on the updated training data to generate the reduced training data is performing a principal component analysis (PCA) on the updated training data to generate the reduced training data.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. 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.
Regarding claim 10
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein performing clustering at least once on the reduced training data to generate the clustered training data is performing hierarchical density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (HDBSCAN), density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN), k-means clustering, or Gaussian mixtures at least once on the reduced training data to generate the clustered training data.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claims 11-19
Claims 11-19 recites analogous limitations to claims 1-10 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claims 1-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN C MANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00pm.
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, David Yi can be reached at 5712707519. 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.
/VAN C MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights