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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1,8,17 are amended
Claims 1-20 are pending
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Response to Applicant Remarks
Applicant’s well-articulated remarks have been considered but are unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claimed invention cannot be practiced in the human mind . (Applicant’s 2/24/26 remarks, p.2). The examiner concurs that at the granularity currently claimed, the invention is arguably incapable of being practiced by a human. However, the examiner notes that Applicant’s amendment introduces several features via wherein clauses. (e.g.” wherein the tool
data is generated using an artificial intelligence model that was trained using hierarchical
classification infrastructures and previously misidentified false distress orders, wherein the
artificial intelligence model was further trained based on at least one of a tuning of the artificial
intelligence model using the previously misidentified false distress orders, a hyper-parameter
estimator value, of a group of hyper-parameter values, that boosts a number of boosting stages to be executed during training, or a defined maximum depth value associated with the hyper-
parameter estimator value, “). Although the clause recites several technical features of machine learning, it is not entirely clear that the invention positively performs them, as the wherein clause only describes the origin of the tool data, and it is not entirely clear how much patentable weight should be assigned to these features.
However, even assuming for argument that the invention cannot be practiced by the human mind, the examiner respectfully suggests that analysis of a supply chain could also fall under a method of organizing human activity abstract idea (fundamental economic principles or commercial interactions) and the claimed features associated with machine learning are built on mathematical concepts.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding independent claims 1,8,17 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites the abstract idea of determining supply chain false alarms which is a method of organizing human activity or mathematical concept. Other than reciting a processor and models nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the processor and models the limitations on receive customer order, determine order is a suspected false distress order, determine suspected false distress order is a false distress order, determine predicted time value for order, determine false distress order is actual distress order, transmit tool data to engineer is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation is a method of organizing human activity (Fundamental economic practice relating to commercial interactions). To the extent that the claim recites a classification or regression model or trained artificial intelligence model, the examiner understands these to employ machine learning techniques. However at the level they are claimed, they appear to only recite using generic computers to implement ineligible high level mathematical concepts. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor and models amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the supply chain false distress determination steps. The subject matter of claims 2 (trained on gradient boosting framework), 3 (initialized with parameters), 4/18 (adapted with parameters), 5/19 (evaluation with validation dataset), 6/20 (evaluation with testing dataset), 7 (evaluated based on feature importance), 9 (second model is developed based on previous active order data), 10 (active order attributes), 11 (developed with a target variable), 12 (second model developed with time values), 13 (random forest initialization), 14 (second model is trained using previous good order data), 15 (second model is evaluated using testing dataset), 16 (second model is evaluated using metric) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. To the extent these claims describe the training, testing and updating steps for machine learning models, these appear to also add steps that fall under mathematical concepts. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627