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
The action is in response to claims dated 4/26/2024.
Claims pending in the case: 1-20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 8 and 15 recites “training the explainer model based on the difference metric”. The examiner was unable to find support for this limitation in the current specification. The specification does not appear to indicate how the difference metric is being used in training the explainer. The applicant is requested to identify the paragraphs and lines in the specification that supports this limitation.
All claims dependent on this claim are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to the virtue of their respective direct and indirect dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1 Analysis
According to the first part of the analysis, the instant case all claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1, Step 2A Prong 2, and Step 2B Analysis
Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
…computing a first result … wherein the first result is based on a first dataset and a second data set …(This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.);
computing a difference metric between a first result and a second result (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
detecting an explainer model check by a system (This is a recitation of generic computer components to be used in performing the abstract idea, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).);
generating … by an explainer model of a Prediction and Explanation of the system (This is a recitation of generic computer components to be used in performing the abstract idea, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
training the explainer model based on the difference metric (This high level recitation of the training of the model is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. It only appears to amount to the use of a generically recited, off the shelf component, as a tool to implement the process and is not an inventive concept. Since the model is used merely as a tool to implement an existing process, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).).
These claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent Claims 8 AND 15, are similar in scope as claim XX and therefore rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements of “a processor and one or more computer readable storage media” in claim 15 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (This is a recitation of generic computer components to be used in performing the abstract idea, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).).
The dependent claims recite at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends and recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4 pertain to types of data (The collection of data of a particular type or source is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05 (h).).
Dependent claims 5, 7 pertain to computing data (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Dependent claims 6 pertain to types of data model being a machine learning model (This high level recitation of the machine learning model is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. It only appears to amount to the use of a generically recited, off the shelf component, as a tool to implement the process and is not an inventive concept. Since the model is used merely as a tool to implement an existing process, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
These dependent claims therefore, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
Dependent Claims 8-14 and 15-20, are similar in scope as claims 1-7 and 1-3, 5-7 respectively and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Hence these claims are rejected as being abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (AMEE: A Robust Framework for Explanation Evaluation in time series classification – please refer to attached for claim mapping) in view of Gupta (US 20210241169).
Regarding Claim 1, Nguyen teaches, A computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting an explainer model check by a system (Nguyen: Pg. 5, Fig. 2, Pg. 7 section 3.5: explainer model in system);
responsive to the detecting the explainer model check, computing a first result by a Data and Model Preparation of the system wherein the first result is based on a first dataset and a second data set generated by the Data and Model Preparation (Nguyen: Pg. 6, section 3.2, Pg. 7 section 3.5: first dataset and perturbation dataset; each explanation to create a step-wise perturbation on Dtest );
generating a second result by an explainer model of a Prediction and Explanation of the system based on the first dataset and the second data set (Nguyen: Pg. 5-7 sections 3.1, 3.5: saliency map represented by vector computed by an explanation model ; measure accuracy of trained referee);
computing a difference metric between a first result and a second result by a Judgment Retraining of the system (Nguyen: Pg. 5-7 sections 3.2, 3.5, Pg. 19 Fig. 1: accuracy measurement; measure impact of perturbation; and
evaluating the explainer model based on the difference metric (Nguyen: Pg. 15 section 5: evaluation approach used to select appropriate explanation methods);
However, Nguyen does not specifically teach,
training the explainer model based on the difference metric;
Gupta teaches, training the explainer model based on the difference metric (Gupta: [57-59, 73]: model may be trained based on performance metric such as difference in accuracy);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nguyen and Gupta because the combination would enable retraining the model based on model performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would enable model improvement based on performance.
Regarding claim 2, Nguyen and Gupta teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the first dataset is based on a real transaction (Nguyen: Pg. 15 sections 5: data set may be real).
Regarding claim 3, Nguyen and Gupta teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the second dataset is based on a fake transaction (Nguyen: Pg. 15 sections 5: data set may be synthetic).
Regarding claim 4, Nguyen and Gupta teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the first dataset and the second dataset comprise features and values (Nguyen: Pg. 5-6 sections 3.1-3.2: features and values in time series).
Regarding claim 5, Nguyen and Gupta teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the first result is computed based on a difference between a feature weight of the first dataset and a feature weight of the second dataset (Nguyen: Pg. 5-6 sections 3.1-3.2).
Regarding claim 6, Nguyen and Gupta teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the explainer model is a machine learning model (Nguyen: Pg. 2 [2]. Pgs. 3-4 sections 2.1-2.3: section 2.2: machine learning model).
Regarding claim 7, Nguyen and Gupta teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the difference metric is further based on computing a ratio of the first result and the second result for each data element in the first dataset and the second dataset (Nguyen: Pg. 19 Fig. 1: measure drop in accuracy). It is to be noted that given all the relevant data fields that may be used, a user may choose to use in the analysis, ratios, percentages or other forms of weights using the data to achieve the same goal. This mention of a ratio does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding Claim(s) 8-14, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1-7 respectively. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 15-20, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 respectively. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDRITA BRAHMACHARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11 am to 8 pm EST.
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571 272 4241. 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.
/Mandrita Brahmachari/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights