CTNF 18/542,517 CTNF 84379 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As to claim 1, the limitation “extracting a pre-trained feature extractor from the pre-trained property prediction model” is not understood by the examiner. The specification of the current application teaches “extracting features” ( taught in paragraphs [0033] & [0070] ) not extracting the feature extractor itself. What is the purpose of extracting the feature extractor and what steps would need to be followed to extract the feature extractor? The examiner will examine the claims as if the claims meant that features are extracted, not the feature extractor itself being extracted. Claims 2 - 8 depend on claim 1, therefore, the claims are also rejected. As to claims 10 and 20, the limitations “receive a synthetic dataset and validation groundtruth associated with the synthetic dataset” does not clearly describe the invention. The examiner is not sure if the applicant is claiming “receive a synthetic dataset and receive a validation groundtruth associated with the synthetic dataset” or “receive a synthetic dataset and determine a validation groundtruth associated with the synthetic dataset.” The examiner will interpret the claims as if both the synthetic dataset and the validation groundtruth are both being received.. Claims 11 - 19 depend on claim 10, therefore, the claims are also rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step One Claims 1 - 9 are directed to a computer-implemented method. Claims 10 - 19 are directed to a computer-implemented method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Claim 20 recites a “computer-readable storage media” that store a software program performing a function. The specification fails to expressly limit the recited “media” to a statutory embodiment. Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of the recited "media" includes signals, carrier waves, etc. Accordingly, the recited “computer-readable storage media” are not a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter, and Claim 20 fails to recite statutory subject matter as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101. As to claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: generating a pre-training synthetic dataset using a data synthesis process; For example, a human can generate a dataset by making observations and writing down values/words associated with the observations. Humans have been generating datasets before computers where ever even invented. determining a predicted property of the pre-training synthetic dataset using a property prediction model; For example, a human can generate a prediction based on the observed data. Humans have been generating predictions before computers where ever even invented. generating a fine-tuning synthetic dataset and a validation synthetic groundtruth associated with the fine-tuning synthetic dataset; For example, a human can generate a smaller dataset comprising of only the data that is above a threshold (valid data). Humans have been fine-tuning data before computers where ever even invented. executing a first candidate algorithm with the fine-tuning synthetic dataset as input; For example, a human can follow instructions step-by-step (algorithm), just like a computer, to produce the correct output. Humans have been following instructions before computers where ever even invented. comparing the validation synthetic groundtruth with a first output of the first candidate algorithm as executed on the fine-tuning synthetic dataset, resulting in a first performance score; For example, a human can compare two data sets and rank (score) them to based on how close they are in value. Humans have been comparing and scoring data before computers where ever even invented. executing a second candidate algorithm with the fine-tuning synthetic dataset as input; For example, a human can follow instructions step-by-step (algorithm), just like a computer, to produce the correct output. Humans have been following instructions before computers where ever even invented. comparing the validation synthetic groundtruth with a second output of the second candidate algorithm as executed on the fine-tuning synthetic dataset, resulting in a second performance score; For example, a human can compare two data sets and rank (score) them to based on how close they are in value. Humans have been comparing and scoring data before computers where ever even invented. associating model selection groundtruth with the fine-tuning synthetic dataset based on the first performance score and the second performance score, the model selection groundtruth indicating relative performance of the first candidate algorithm and the second candidate algorithm on the fine-tuning synthetic dataset; For example, a human can associated data with its rank (score) to assist in determining the overall performance. Humans have been determine the performance of something before computers where ever even invented. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: pre-training the property prediction model based on: the pre-training synthetic dataset, and a pre-training loss that quantifies error between a known property of the pre-training synthetic dataset and the predicted property, resulting in a trained property prediction model; extracting a pre-trained feature extractor from the pre-trained property prediction model extracting synthetic features from the fine-tuning synthetic dataset using the pre- trained feature extractor; training an algorithm selection model based on the synthetic features extracted from the fine-tuning synthetic dataset and the model selection ground truth associated with the fine-tuning synthetic dataset, resulting in a trained algorithm selection model configured to predict relative performance of the first candidate algorithm and the second candidate algorithm based on features extracted from a real dataset by the pre-trained feature extractor. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) The recitation of pre-trained feature extractor amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: pre-training the property prediction model based on: the pre-training synthetic dataset, and a pre-training loss that quantifies error between a known property of the pre-training synthetic dataset and the predicted property, resulting in a trained property prediction model; extracting a pre-trained feature extractor from the pre-trained property prediction model extracting synthetic features from the fine-tuning synthetic dataset using the pre- trained feature extractor; training an algorithm selection model based on the synthetic features extracted from the fine-tuning synthetic dataset and the model selection ground truth associated with the fine-tuning synthetic dataset, resulting in a trained algorithm selection model configured to predict relative performance of the first candidate algorithm and the second candidate algorithm based on features extracted from a real dataset by the pre-trained feature extractor. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) The recitation of pre-trained feature extractor amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 2, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: selecting, using the trained algorithm selector applied to the first real features, the first candidate algorithm; For example, a human can choose an algorithm which is the best fit based on step-by-step instructions. executing the first candidate algorithm with the first real dataset as input. For example, a human can follow instructions step-by-step (algorithm), just like a computer, to produce the correct output. Humans have been following instructions before computers where ever even invented. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: receiving a first real dataset which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim further recites: extracting first real features from the first real dataset using the pre-trained feature extractor which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the extraction process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: receiving a first real dataset are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). The claim further recites: extracting first real features from the first real dataset using the pre-trained feature extractor which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 3, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 2, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: performing a first action on a first physical or logical system based on a first result of the first candidate algorithm as executed on the first real dataset. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of “performing an action” 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 claim further recites a physical system and a logical system which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: performing a first action on a first physical or logical system based on a first result of the first candidate algorithm as executed on the first real dataset. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of “performing an action” 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 claim further recites a physical system and a logical system which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 4, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: selecting, using the trained algorithm selector applied to the second real features, the second candidate algorithm; For example, a human can choose an algorithm which is the best fit based on step-by-step instructions. executing the second candidate algorithm with the second real dataset as input. For example, a human can follow instructions step-by-step (algorithm), just like a computer, to produce the correct output. Humans have been following instructions before computers where ever even invented. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: receiving a second real dataset which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim further recites: extracting first second features from the second real dataset using the pre-trained feature extractor which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the extraction process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: receiving a second real dataset are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). The claim further recites: extracting first second features from the second real dataset using the pre-trained feature extractor which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 5, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 4, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: performing a second action on a second physical or logical system based on a second result of the second candidate algorithm as executed on the second real dataset which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of “performing an action” 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 claim further recites a physical system and a logical system which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: performing a second action on a second physical or logical system based on a second result of the second candidate algorithm as executed on the second real dataset which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of “performing an action” 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 claim further recites a physical system and a logical system which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 6, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: wherein the algorithm selection model is trained based on a selection training loss that quantifies error between the second ground truth and a selection output of the algorithm selection model. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: wherein the algorithm selection model is trained based on a selection training loss that quantifies error between the second ground truth and a selection output of the algorithm selection model. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 7, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: wherein the known property comprises an assumption used to generate the synthetic dataset. For example, a human can generate data using a pencil and paper based on assumptions. Humans have been assuming before computers where ever even invented. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception. As to claims 8, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: wherein the model selection ground truth indicates a best performing of the first candidate algorithm and the second candidate algorithm, wherein the trained algorithm selection outputs a ranking of the first candidate algorithm and the second candidate algorithm on the real dataset For example, a human can select the best performing algorithm based on the highest performance score (ranking). As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception. As to claim 9, Step 2A, Prong One The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: the first candidate algorithm is a first computer vision algorithm and the second candidate algorithm is a second computer vision algorithm, the pre-training synthetic dataset and the fine-tuning synthetic dataset each comprising synthetic image data; the first candidate algorithm is a first cybersecurity algorithm and the second candidate algorithm is a second cybersecurity algorithm, the pre-training synthetic dataset and the fine-tuning synthetic dataset each comprising synthetic cybersecurity data; the first candidate algorithm is a first audio processing algorithm and the second candidate algorithm is a second audio processing algorithm, the pre-training synthetic dataset and the fine-tuning synthetic dataset each comprising synthetic audio data; or the first candidate algorithm is a first manufacturing or engineering algorithm and the second candidate algorithm is a second manufacturing or engineering algorithm, the pre-training synthetic dataset and the fine-tuning synthetic dataset each comprising synthetic manufacturing or engineering data. amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: the first candidate algorithm is a first computer vision algorithm and the second candidate algorithm is a second computer vision algorithm, the pre-training synthetic dataset and the fine-tuning synthetic dataset each comprising synthetic image data; the first candidate algorithm is a first cybersecurity algorithm and the second candidate algorithm is a second cybersecurity algorithm, the pre- training synthetic dataset and the fine-tuning synthetic dataset each comprising synthetic cybersecurity data; the first candidate algorithm is a first audio processing algorithm and the second candidate algorithm is a second audio processing algorithm, the pre-training synthetic dataset and the fine-tuning synthetic dataset each comprising synthetic audio data; or the first candidate algorithm is a first manufacturing or engineering algorithm and the second candidate algorithm is a second manufacturing or engineering algorithm, the pre-training synthetic dataset and the fine-tuning synthetic dataset each comprising synthetic manufacturing or engineering data. amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception As to claim 10, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: execute a first candidate causal algorithm with the synthetic dataset as input; For example, a human can follow instructions step-by-step (algorithm), just like a computer, to produce the correct output. Humans have been following instructions before computers where ever even invented. compare the validation groundtruth with a first output of the first candidate causal algorithm as executed on the synthetic dataset, resulting in a first performance score; For example, a human can compare two data sets and rank (score) them to based on how close they are in value. Humans have been comparing and scoring data before computers where ever even invented. execute a second candidate causal algorithm with the synthetic dataset as input; For example, a human can follow instructions step-by-step (algorithm), just like a computer, to produce the correct output. Humans have been following instructions before computers where ever even invented. compare the second groundtruth with a second output of the second candidate causal algorithm as executed on the synthetic dataset, resulting in a second performance score; For example, a human can compare two data sets and rank (score) them to based on how close they are in value. Humans have been comparing and scoring data before computers where ever even invented. associate model selection groundtruth with the synthetic dataset based on the first performance score and the second performance score, the model selection groundtruth indicating relative performance of the first candidate causal algorithm and the second candidate causal algorithm on the synthetic dataset; For example, a human can associated data with its rank (score) to assist in determining the overall performance. Humans have been determine the performance of something before computers where ever even invented. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: receive a synthetic dataset and validation groundtruth associated with the synthetic dataset; which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim further recites: train an algorithm selection model based on the synthetic dataset and the model selection ground truth associated with the synthetic dataset, resulting in a trained algorithm selection model configured to predict relative performance of the first candidate causal algorithm and the second candidate causal algorithm based on a further dataset received as input. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) The claim further recites a memory and a hardware processor which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: receive a synthetic dataset and validation groundtruth associated with the synthetic dataset; are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). The claim further recites: train an algorithm selection model based on the synthetic dataset and the model selection ground truth associated with the synthetic dataset, resulting in a trained algorithm selection model configured to predict relative performance of the first candidate causal algorithm and the second candidate causal algorithm based on a further dataset received as input. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) The claim further recites a memory and a hardware processor which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 11, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: selecting, using the trained algorithm selector applied to the first real dataset, the first candidate causal algorithm; For example, a human can choose an algorithm which is the best fit based on step-by-step instructions. executing the first candidate causal algorithm with the first real dataset as input. For example, a human can follow instructions step-by-step (algorithm), just like a computer, to produce the correct output. Humans have been following instructions before computers where ever even invented. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: receiving a first real dataset which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: receiving a first real dataset are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 12, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 2, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: performing a first action on a first physical system based on a first result of the first candidate causal algorithm as executed on the first real dataset. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of “performing an action” 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 claim further recites a physical system and a logical system which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: performing a first action on a first physical system based on a first result of the first candidate causal algorithm as executed on the first real dataset. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of “performing an action” 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 claim further recites a physical system and a logical system which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 13, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: selecting, using the trained algorithm selector applied to the second real dataset, the second candidate causal algorithm; For example, a human can choose an algorithm which is the best fit based on step-by-step instructions. executing the second candidate causal algorithm with the second real dataset as input. For example, a human can follow instructions step-by-step (algorithm), just like a computer, to produce the correct output. Humans have been following instructions before computers where ever even invented. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: receiving a second real dataset; which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: receiving a second real dataset are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 14, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: the first result comprises an estimated treatment effect for the first action performed on the machine or the computer system. For example, a human can make an estimation. Humans have been making estimations before computers where ever even invented. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a physical system comprising a machine or a computer system which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: a physical system comprising a machine or a computer system which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 15, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: the treatment effect pertains to product quality, production efficiency, machinery performance, or usage of memory or processing resources. For example, a humans are fully capable of making estimations about quality, efficiency, performance, and/or memory usage. Humans have been making estimations before computers where ever even invented. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception. As to claims 16, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: wherein the synthetic dataset comprises synthetic medical data, wherein executing the first candidate causal algorithm with the first real dataset as input results in a predicted therapeutic effect. For example, a human can follow instructions step-by-step (algorithm), just like a computer, to produce the correct output. Humans have been following instructions before computers where ever even invented. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception. As to claims 17, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 2, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: performing a second action on a second physical system based on a second result of the second candidate causal algorithm as executed on the second real dataset. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of “performing an action” and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: performing a second action on a second physical system based on a second result of the second candidate causal algorithm as executed on the second real dataset. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of “performing an action” and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 18, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: wherein the algorithm selection model is trained based on a selection training loss that quantifies error between the second ground truth and a selection output of the algorithm selection model which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: wherein the algorithm selection model is trained based on a selection training loss that quantifies error between the second ground truth and a selection output of the algorithm selection model which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 19, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: wherein the first and second candidate causal algorithms are configured to identify causal relationships in data. For example, a human can follow instructions step-by-step (algorithm), just like a computer, to produce the correct output. Humans have been following instructions before computers where ever even invented. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception. Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 10. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above. The claim further recites a computer-readable instructions and a hardware processor which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NARAYANAN et al (US 2024/0249158) teaches machine learning monitoring and retraining techniques for automatically triggering model retraining based on evaluation scores. The techniques include receiving a request to process an input data object with a target machine learning model that is previously trained using an at least partially synthetic training dataset. The techniques include identifying a synthetic data object from the training dataset that corresponds to the input data object and, in response, modifying a holistic evaluation score for the model, initiating the performance of a labeling process for assigning a ground truth label to the input data object, and augmenting a supplemental training dataset with the input data object and the ground truth label. In the event that the holistic evaluation score decreased beyond a threshold, the model may be retrained with the supplemental training dataset. Claims 1 - 20 are allowable over prior art of record because the art does of record does not disclose or suggest obvious compare the validation groundtruth with a first output of the first candidate causal algorithm as executed on the synthetic dataset, resulting in a first performance score; execute a second candidate causal algorithm with the synthetic dataset as input; compare the second groundtruth with a second output of the second candidate causal algorithm as executed on the synthetic dataset, resulting in a second performance score; associate model selection groundtruth with the synthetic dataset based on the first performance score and the second performance score, the model selection groundtruth, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off). Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 2 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 3 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 4 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 5 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 6 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 7 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 8 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 9 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 10 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 11 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 12 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 13 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 14 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 15 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 16 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 17 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 18 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 19 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 20 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 21 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 22 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 23 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 24 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 25 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 26 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 27 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 28 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 29 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 30 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 31 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 32 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 33 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 34 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 35 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 36 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 37 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 38 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 39 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 40 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 41 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 42 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 43 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 44 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 45 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/542,517 Page 46 Art Unit: 2128
Prosecution Insights