Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
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 1: claims 1-20 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
With respect to claims 1, 18:
2A Prong 1:
generating, [using the one or more generative models], based on the analysis data and the data dictionary, a summary of the analysis data (Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data);
generating, [using the one or more generative models], based on the context data, the summary of the analysis data, and the data dictionary, a description of a relationship between the outcome variable and at least a subset of the one or more fields (Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data);
generating, [using the one or more generative models], based on the context data and the description of the relationship, one or more potential explanations for the relationship (Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
computer-implemented, processor, storage medium (computer component 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; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
obtaining analysis data indicating a plurality of results of analysis of a data set, the data set comprising a plurality of records, each record in the plurality of records including values of one or more respective fields and a value of an outcome variable (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
obtaining context data that characterizes a use case of the data set; generating, [using one or more generative models], based on the analysis data and the context data, a data dictionary that associates each field in the one or more fields with a respective description of the field(mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
using one or more generative models (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f));
outputting, [for presentation via a user interface], output data based on the one or more potential explanations (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
for presentation via a user interface (computer component 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) presenting is insignificant extra solution and under 2B Berkheimer from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II);
Claim 18 storage medium for storing programs (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
computer-implemented, processor, storage medium (computer component 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; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
obtaining analysis data indicating a plurality of results of analysis of a data set, the data set comprising a plurality of records, each record in the plurality of records including values of one or more respective fields and a value of an outcome variable (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
obtaining context data that characterizes a use case of the data set; generating, [using one or more generative models], based on the analysis data and the context data, a data dictionary that associates each field in the one or more fields with a respective description of the field(mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
using one or more generative models (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f));
outputting, [for presentation via a user interface], output data based on the one or more potential explanations (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
for presentation via a user interface (computer component 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) presenting is insignificant extra solution and under 2B Berkheimer from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II);
Claim 18 storage medium for storing programs (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
Displaying on an interface: Presenting offers and gathering
statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Further, the receiving/transmitting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The receiving and/or transmitting limitations constitute extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."). The court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely Receiving and/or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed receiving/transmitting steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is not patent eligible.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the context data, the respective descriptions of the one or more fields of the data dictionary, the summary of the analysis data, the description of the relationship between the outcome variable and the subset of the one or more fields, and/or the one or more potential explanations comprise natural-language content (further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the data dictionary comprises: constructing a first prompt(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data) that includes data indicating a first field selected from the one or more fields; providing the first prompt (receiving and/or transmitting limitations constitute extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to the one or more generative models; and receiving a first completion from the one or more generative models, the first completion including a description of the first field(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein generating the data dictionary further comprises: constructing a second prompt, wherein constructing the second prompt includes appending the first completion and data indicating a second field selected from the one or more fields to the first prompt; providing the second prompt (receiving and/or transmitting limitations constitute extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to the one or more generative models; and receiving a second completion from the one or more generative models, the second completion including a description of the second field(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the data dictionary comprises generating, using the one or more generative models (see above), the respective descriptions of the one or more fields (further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the analysis data comprises a markdown table, the markdown table comprising tabular data represented in text, the tabular data being derived from plot data(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising constructing a summary prompt including the markdown table and providing the summary prompt (receiving and/or transmitting limitations constitute extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to the one or more generative models, wherein the generating of the summary of the analysis data using the one or more generative models is based on the markdown table(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the analysis data comprises feature impact data describing, for each of the one or more fields, a respective extent to which the field affects the outcome variable; and generating the summary of the analysis data comprises generating, based on the context data and an abbreviated representation of the feature impact data, a summary of the feature impact data(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the analysis data comprises partial dependency data indicating, for each of the one or more fields, a direction and magnitude of a relationship between a change in the value of the respective field and a change in the value of the outcome variable(mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation); and generating the summary of the analysis data comprises generating, based on the context data and an abbreviated representation of the partial dependency data, a summary of the partial dependency data(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the analysis data comprises word cloud data indicating, for a plurality of words present in the analysis data, a frequency and an importance for each word in the plurality of words; and generating the summary of the analysis data comprises generating, based on the context data and an abbreviated representation of the word cloud data, a summary of the word cloud data(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the description of the relationship comprises: constructing a first relationship prompt based on the context data, the summary of the analysis data, and the data dictionary, the first relationship prompt relating to the relationship between the outcome variable and the subset of the one or more fields; providing the first relationship prompt to the one or more generative models; and receiving a first completion from the one or more generative models, the first completion including a description of the relationship(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the relationship is a first relationship, the subset of the one or more fields is a first subset of the one or more fields, the method further comprising: constructing a second relationship prompt, wherein constructing the second relationship prompt includes appending the first completion to the first relationship prompt, the second relationship prompt relating to a second relationship between the outcome variable and a second subset of the one or more fields; providing the second relationship prompt (receiving and/or transmitting limitations constitute extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to the one or more generative models; and receiving a second completion from the one or more generative models, the second completion including a description of the second relationship(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a natural-language query regarding the analysis data; constructing a first query prompt based on the context data, the summary of the analysis data, the one or more potential explanations, and the natural-language query; and generating a response to the natural-language query, wherein generating the response includes providing the first query prompt to the one or more generative models and receiving a first completion including the response to the natural-language query from the one or more generative models, wherein the output data includes the response to the natural-language query(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the natural-language query is a first natural-language query, the method further comprising: receiving a second natural-language query regarding the analysis data; constructing a second query prompt based on the context data, the summary of the analysis data, the one or more potential explanations, the first natural-language query, the response to the natural-language query, and the second natural-language query; and generating a response to the second natural-language query, wherein generating the response includes providing the second query prompt to the one or more generative models (see above) and receiving a second completion including the response to the second natural-language query from the one or more generative models(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the output data comprises an executive summary comprising: a summary of the description of the relationship between the outcome variable and the subset of the one or more fields; and the one or more potential explanations for the relationship(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising generating the executive summary, using the one or more generative models, wherein generating the executive summary comprises: constructing, based on the context data, the data dictionary, and the description of the relationship, a first prompt including the description of the relationship between the outcome variable and the subset of the one or more fields; providing the first prompt(receiving and/or transmitting limitations constitute extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to the one or more generative models; and receiving a first completion from the one or more generative models, the first completion including a summary of the description of the relationship(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein generating the executive summary further comprises: constructing a second prompt including the summary of the description of the relationship; providing the second prompt (receiving and/or transmitting limitations constitute extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to the one or more generative models; and receiving a second completion from the one or more generative models, the second completion including the one or more potential explanations of the first relationship(further expand mental process human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
With respect to claims 1, 18:
2A Prong 1:
identifying contextual data related the request based on metadata and the received request (encompasses mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a computer programmer’s mental identification of data);
constructing a prompt including the contextual data and the request, wherein the contextual data identify a programming language and an application programming interface; (Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data, identifying API, not using it);
generating, [using the one or more generative models], based on the context data and the description of the relationship, one or more potential explanations for the relationship (Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
computer-implemented, application programming interface, a user interface (computer component 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; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
receiving a request to generate computer-executable operations for use (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
generative models (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f));
receiving, as output from the one or more [generative models], the computer-executable operations corresponding to the request; and outputting, for presentation via [a user interface], output data representing the computer-executable operations (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
for presentation via a user interface (computer component 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) presenting is insignificant extra solution and under 2B Berkheimer from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II);
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
computer-implemented, application programming interface, a user interface (computer component 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; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
receiving a request to generate computer-executable operations for use (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
generative models (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f));
receiving, as output from the one or more [generative models], the computer-executable operations corresponding to the request; and outputting, for presentation via [a user interface], output data representing the computer-executable operations (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
for presentation via a user interface (computer component 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) presenting is insignificant extra solution and under 2B Berkheimer from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II);
Displaying on an interface: Presenting offers and gathering
statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Further, the receiving/transmitting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The receiving and/or transmitting limitations constitute extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."). The court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely Receiving and/or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed receiving/transmitting steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is not patent eligible.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gutierrez (US 12,106,026) teaches generative models (40-43) and describing relationships (45).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R VINCENT whose telephone number is (571)272-3080. The examiner can normally be reached ~Mon-Fri 12-8:30.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at 5712703428. 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.
/DAVID R VINCENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2123
Prosecution Insights