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
This office action is in response to the claims filed on 10/21/2025.
Claims 1-6; 8-14; 18-23 are presented for examination.
Response to Argument
In reference to applicant’s argument regrading rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s Argument:
In this case, as discussed in more detail below, the practical application is at least an improvement to estimating performance of Al model-node pairs without computationally expensive execution of the Al model on candidate nodes, and deploying the Al model to a node based on the estimated performance. Accordingly, the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter and are allowable.
The Federal Circuit has "cautioned that courts 'must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims' by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims," and the claims must be "considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, 837 F.3d 1299, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, the "court must look to the claims as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps. Id. at 1313; see also Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337 (noting that "describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule"). The McRO court further explained that "the means or method of producing a certain result, or effect" may be patent-eligible, while "the result or effect produced" may not be. McRO at 1314. Accordingly, the first step in the Alice analysis may hinge on "whether the claims . . . focus on a specific means or a method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery. Id.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees to applicant’s argument because the claim does not recite an improvement of the machine learning model or the functioning of the computer in the technology field. Furthermore, the estimating performance of Al model-node pairs without computationally expensive execution of the Al model on candidate nodes and, that is the improvement of the mental process, which is not considered as the improvement of the functioning of the computer in the technology field.
Furthermore, the additional limitation recites deploying the Al model to a node based on the estimated performance This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the claim does not recite an improvement of the machine learning model or the functioning of the computer in the technology field.
Applicant’s Argument:
Independent Claim 1 is Eligible at Step 2A Prong One
Artificial intelligence (AI) models typically consist of millions of nodes and edges. The process of decomposing such models into numerous "pre-stored blocks," creating a database of benchmark results for each of these blocks across various hardware devices, and then calculating the "similarity" between a new model (query) and these blocks based on the "connection relationship and attributes of each node" is a process that cannot be practically performed by the human mind or mental calculation. This is a tangible technical process that is impractical to perform without the aid of a computer.
Furthermore, the process of combining or transforming pre-measured benchmark results for multiple hardware devices and decomposed AI model blocks to automatically determine suitable candidate devices for an AI model is also a technical process that cannot be performed by human mental capacity.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees to applicant’ argument since the applicant’s argument does not provide the detail of the how the claim limitations cannot be performed by the human. The calculating the "similarity" between a new model (query) and these blocks based on the "connection relationship and attributes of each node" is the mental process, the human can compare or see the different between two blocks with different feature, for example, the human can see the cat block feature is different with the dog block feature.
“ determining, based on the benchmark prediction result, a target device to which to deploy the target artificial intelligence model;” the human can select/ determine which target device is used for deploy the model based on the prediction result (benchmark prediction result).
Furthermore, the additional limitations do not recite the improvement of the machine learning model or the improvement of functioning of the computer in the technology field, such as decomposing/dividing the models into numerous "pre-stored blocks” or nodes, and creating a database of benchmark results for each of these blocks across various hardware devices, these are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
-the database stores the blocks or prestored block this is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data storing. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data storing to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the claim does not recite the improvement of the machine learning model itself and the improvement of the functioning of the computer in the technology field. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive, the rejection is still maintained.
Applicant’s Argument:
As established in the Alice/Mayo framework, the claim must be considered "as a whole" to determine whether it is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04.
Amended claim 1 cannot be interpreted as a mere summation of individual mental steps such as "obtaining,""determining," or "generating." Rather, it recites an integrated process of predicting an AI model's performance without executing it on actual hardware by using benchmark data of the model's constituent blocks, and utilizing this prediction to determine the optimal hardware and deploy the model tailored for that hardware. Therefore, the proper analysis is whether this integrated combination of limitations as a whole recites an abstract idea that can be performed by the human mind. Under this proper analysis, the integrated process recited in the claim as a whole cannot be performed by a human mind. The database construction process, as specified in amended claim 1, cannot be practically performed by the human mind alone due to its scale, complexity, and the necessity of physical execution. Regarding the "dividing,""extracting," and "generating a block" steps: Modern AI models are vast data structures composed of millions or more nodes and their interconnecting edges. The human mind is incapable of accurately dividing such a complex model into its individual operational units (nodes), extracting the specific technical attributes of each node (e.g., the shape of input/output tensors, weight matrix values), and then recombining them to generate numerous new 'block' data structures. This is a tangible technical process of data processing and structuring that a human mind is not equipped to perform without a computer… Regarding the "generating performance measurement information by performing a benchmark" step: This step specifies that each generated 'block' is executed on each physical 'device' to perform a benchmark. The human mind cannot execute software code (a block) on physical hardware (a device) and measure the resulting physical phenomenon (e.g., the performance measurement information: latency in milliseconds). This is a process of conducting a physical experiment in the real world via a machine (a computer) and collecting the results, which does not fall into the category of an abstract idea. This step cannot be performed "in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" as required to be considered a mental process (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). In contrast, this step cannot be performed without the use of computers and does not correspond to any human mental process.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees to applicant’s argument because the claim not recite the practical application, since the amended claim limitation still recites the mental process, such as “determining at least one target block to be used to obtain the benchmark prediction result by computationally calculating a similarity between the query configuration and each of the stored block, wherein the similarity is determined based on a connection relationship between nodes and an attribute of each node within the store blocked, wherein when the query configuration exist in a single block of the stored blocks, based on the calculated similarity, the single block is determined as as the at least on target block, and wherein when the query configuration does not exist in a single block of the stored blocks, based on the calculated similarity, a combination of two or more blocks of the stored blocks is determined as the at least one target block ” as the human mind can determine or choose which the block/computer to be used to obtain the benchmark prediction result by comparing or calculating the similarity between the blocks (the human mind can recognizes the different between the blocks, for example, the block of the dog feature is different with the block has the cat feature. (Observation/Evaluation).
“identify a plurality of candidates devices” the human mind can identify a plurality of the candidate devices, for example, can select/identify the candidate devices is used to deploy the AI model from the plurality devices (observation/evaluation).
-“determining, based on the benchmark prediction result, a target device to which to deploy the target artificial intelligence model;” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine which device to deploy the target machine learning model based on the benchmark prediction result, for example, the human can select the target devices number 1, 4, 5 are used to deploy the AI model if the benchmark prediction result within the range (result of predicting the performance of the machine or device), (Observation/Evaluation).
Furthermore, the additional amened claim limitations are not integrated into the practical application, such as the additional limitation recites the “generating, for each candidate device of the plurality of candidate devices, the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query by combining or transforming the performance measurement information assigned to the determined at least one target block for each respective candidate device” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recite the generic computer component to generate the mental process, ( generating the benchmark prediction result).
Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive, the 101 rejection is still maintained.
Applicant’s Argument:
Regarding the "generating a database" step: The creation of a structured database from the vast amount of data obtained through the aforementioned physical experiments (generated blocks x multiple devices x performance information) is also impractical for the human mind to manage. This technical feature is a process of building a concrete and practical data structure within a computer's memory for the subsequent prediction steps. Regarding the "converting the query artificial intelligence model" step: converting a query artificial intelligence model into a target artificial intelligence model that is deployed to a target device using download data cannot be performed in a human mind. By converting the query AI model into the target AI model executable at the target device, support for the target model at the target device is ensured, reducing computing resources that would be expended by deploying and executing an unsupported model at the target device. See at least specification as originally filed, para. [0139].
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees to applicant’s argument regarding the generating a database" step: The creation of a structured database from the vast amount of data obtained through the aforementioned physical experiments (generated blocks x multiple devices x performance information) These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data storing. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data storing to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Furthermore, the converting the query AI model into the target AI model executable at the target device, support for the target model at the target device is ensured, reducing computing resources that would be expended by deploying and executing an unsupported model at the target device. These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive, the rejection is still maintained.
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 analysis:
In the instant case, the claims are directed to a method (claims 1-18, 21-23), a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 19) and computing apparatus (claim 20). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A analysis:
Based on the claims being determined to be within of the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), in this case the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Specifically the abstract idea of “Mental Processes/Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”.
The claim 1 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
“determining at least one target block to be used to obtain the benchmark prediction result by computationally calculating a similarity between the query configuration and each of the stored block, wherein the similarity is determined based on a connection relationship between nodes and an attribute of each node within the store blocked, wherein when the query configuration exist in a single block of the stored blocks, based on the calculated similarity, the single block is determined as the at least on target block, and wherein when the query configuration does not exist in a single block of the stored blocks, based on the calculated similarity, a combination of two or more blocks of the stored blocks is determined as the at least one target block ” as the human mind can determine or choose which the block/computer to be used to obtain the benchmark prediction result by comparing or calculating the similarity between the blocks (the human mind can recognizes the different between the blocks, on block has a dog feature and other block has the cat feature), (Observation/Evaluation).
“identify a plurality of candidates devices” the human mind can identify a plurality of the candidate devices, (observation/evaluation).
-“ determining, based on the benchmark prediction result, a target device to which to deploy the target artificial intelligence model;” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine which device to deploy the target machine learning model based on the benchmark prediction result (result of predicting the performance of the machine or device), (Observation/Evaluation).
-“generating download data to deploy the target artificial intelligence model to the target device” this is a mental process, because neither claim nor specification define what is the represents or how it is generated. Therefore, generating the download data to deploy the target artificial intelligence model to the target device is the mental process, as the human mind can generate the download data to deploy the machine learning model, for example, the human mind can process/generate a particular type of received data (downloaded data) to use for deploy the machine learning model (Observation/Evaluation).
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
“dividing an input artificial intelligence model into a plurality of nodes for a plurality of input models so that at least one operation corresponds to one node: extracting, for each of the plurality of nodes, an input attribute representing information input into a node, an operation attribute representing an operation scheme in a node or a function of a node and an output attribute representing information output from a node:” , “generating a block by grouping the plurality of nodes and by connecting with at least one edge, the plurality of nodes in a group, wherein the generated block comprises a node identifying a function or an operation constituting an artificial intelligence model, and an edge connecting nodes:”, “obtaining a benchmark query specifying- _a query configuration that includes a query node and a query edge of a query artificial intelligence model”, “generating, for each candidate device of the plurality of candidate devices, the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query by combining or transforming the performance measurement information assigned to the determined at least one target block for each respective candidate device” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
-“ generating a database by storing the generated blocks as stored blocks to which the performance measurement information is assigned” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data storing. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data storing to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
-“improving operational efficiency of a computing apparatus by deploying a target artificial intelligence model to a target device selected from a plurality of candidate devices based on benchmark prediction results without direct resource-intensive execution of the target artificial intelligence model on the plurality of candidate devices”, “ deploying the target artificial intelligence model to the target device using the download data”, This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
- “Computing apparatus” “generating performance measurement information in units of a combination of the device and the block, by performing a benchmark executing each of the generated blocks at each of the devices:”” generating, for each candidate device of the plurality of candidate devices, the benchmark prediction results corresponding to the benchmark query,”, “converting the-input query artificial intelligence model into the target artificial intelligence model that is executable by the target device by: replacing an operator included in the input query artificial intelligence model to correspond to the target device” The additional limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
b) Step 2B analysis:
“dividing an input artificial intelligence model into a plurality of nodes for a plurality of input models so that at least one operation corresponds to one node: extracting, for each of the plurality of nodes, an input attribute representing information input into a node, an operation attribute representing an operation scheme in a node or a function of a node and an output attribute representing information output from a node:” , “generating a block by grouping the plurality of nodes and by connecting with at least one edge, the plurality of nodes in a group, wherein the generated block comprises a node identifying a function or an operation constituting an artificial intelligence model, and an edge connecting nodes:”, “obtaining a benchmark query specifying- _a query configuration that includes a query node and a query edge of a query artificial intelligence model”, “generating, for each candidate device of the plurality of candidate devices, the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query by combining or transforming the performance measurement information assigned to the determined at least one target block for each respective candidate device” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself .
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").
-“ generating a database by storing the generated blocks as stored blocks to which the performance measurement information is assigned” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data storing. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data storing to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself .
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").
-“improving operational efficiency of a computing apparatus by deploying a target artificial intelligence model to a target device selected from a plurality of candidate devices based on benchmark prediction results without direct resource-intensive execution of the target artificial intelligence model on the plurality of candidate devices”, “ deploying the target artificial intelligence model to the target device using the download data”, This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
- “Computing apparatus”, “Computing apparatus” “generating performance measurement information in units of a combination of the device and the block, by performing a benchmark executing each of the generated blocks at each of the devices:”, “ generating, for each candidate device of the plurality of candidate devices, the benchmark prediction results corresponding to the benchmark query,”, “converting the-input query artificial intelligence model into the target artificial intelligence model that is executable by the target device by: replacing an operator included in the input query artificial intelligence model to correspond to the target device” The additional limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 2 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the benchmark query identifies a target area within the target artificial intelligence model to be benchmarked, and the benchmark prediction result comprises predicted performance information corresponding to the identified target area when a benchmark is performed on a target device.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein the benchmark query identifies a target area within the target artificial intelligence model to be benchmarked, and the benchmark prediction result comprises predicted performance information corresponding to the identified target area when a benchmark is performed on a target device.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 3 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the benchmark query identifies a start node and an end node within the target artificial intelligence model to be benchmarked, and the benchmark prediction result comprises predicted performance information corresponding to a target area defined by the identified start node and the identified end node when the benchmark is performed on a target device.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein the benchmark query identifies a start node and an end node within the target artificial intelligence model to be benchmarked, and the benchmark prediction result comprises predicted performance information corresponding to a target area defined by the identified start node and the identified end node when the benchmark is performed on a target device.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 4 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the benchmark query comprises a node identifier and an edge identifier within the target artificial intelligence model to be benchmarked, and the benchmark prediction result comprises predicted performance information corresponding to a target area defined by the node identifier and the edge identifier when the benchmark is performed on the target device.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein the benchmark query comprises a node identifier and an edge identifier within the target artificial intelligence model to be benchmarked, and the benchmark prediction result comprises predicted performance information corresponding to a target area defined by the node identifier and the edge identifier when the benchmark is performed on the target device.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 5 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“determining a target node corresponding to the query node and a target edge corresponding to the query edge;” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine query node and the query of the benchmark query, (Observation/Evaluation).
-“determining a target node corresponding to the query node and a target edge corresponding to the query edge;” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine the target node based on the query node and query edge, (Observation/Evaluation).
-“and determining a block comprising the target node and the target edge among the pre-stored blocks, as a target block to be used to obtain the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query.” This is a mental process, the human mind can determine the block that comprise the target node and target edge (Observation/Evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 6 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ and determining the at least one target block to be used to obtain the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query, by assigning priority to the pre-stored blocks based on the determined similarity.” This is a mental process, the human mind can determine the target block to be used for benchmark prediction based on the priority, (Observation/ Evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis:
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 7 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ wherein the similarity is determined at least partially based on a connection relationship between nodes and an attribute of each node” This is a mental process, the human mind can determines the partially similarity based on the connection relationship between the nodes and an attribute of each node, (Observation/Evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis:
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 8 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ wherein the determining the at least one target block comprises: determining whether a configuration of a node and an edge corresponding to a query configuration of a query node and a query edge included in the benchmark query exists in a single block of the pre-stored blocks;” This is a mental process, the human mind can determine whether the node and edge included in the benchmark query , that contained in the single block, (Observation/Evaluation).
-“determining a block comprising the configuration corresponding to the query configuration, as a target block to be used to obtain the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query, when the configuration corresponding to the query configuration exists in the single block of the pre-stored blocks;” This is a mental process, the human mind can determine the block, which is used in the benchmarking prediction based on the specific condition, (Observation/Evaluation)
-“ and determining a combination of two or more blocks for generating the configuration corresponding to the query configuration among the pre-stored blocks, when the configuration corresponding to the query configuration does not exist in the single block of the pre-stored blocks.” This is a mental process, the human mind can determine the combination of two or more block, based on the specific condition, (Observation/Evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis:
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 9 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
“wherein the obtaining the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query comprises, obtaining the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query by combining the performance measurement information assigned to each of two or more blocks.” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
wherein the obtaining the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query comprises, obtaining the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query by combining the performance measurement information assigned to each of two or more blocks.” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself .
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 10 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ wherein the determining the at least one target block comprises, determining a block comprising a target node having an attribute interchangeable with a query attribute of the query node among the pre-stored blocks, as a target block to be used to obtain the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query, when a configuration of a node and an edge corresponding to a query configuration of a query node and a query edge included in the benchmark query does not exist in the pre-stored blocks.” This is a mental process; the human mind can determine block comprising the specific node having the attribute interchangeable with other query node (Observation/Evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis:
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 11 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the target node having the attribute interchangeable with the query attribute of the query node among the pre-stored blocks corresponds to a node having data of a shape quantitatively interchangeable with a data shape of the query node.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein the target node having the attribute interchangeable with the query attribute of the query node among the pre-stored blocks corresponds to a node having data of a shape quantitatively interchangeable with a data shape of the query node.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 12 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ wherein the obtaining the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query comprises: determining a substitution value between the target node within the determined target block and the query node;” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine the substitution value between target node, (Observation/Evaluation).
-“ and obtaining the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query, by applying the substitution value to the performance measurement information assigned to the target block.” This is a mental process, the human mind can obtain the benchmark prediction result based on the benchmark query by using the specific condition, (Observation/Evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis:
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 13 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“wherein the substitution value comprises a difference value or ratio value between a quantitative size value corresponding to a data shape of the query node and a quantitative size value corresponding to a data shape of the target node.” This is related to the mathematical concept or math equation (mathematical concept).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis:
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 14 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein each of the pre-stored blocks comprises at least one sub block, the number of the at least one sub block within a single block corresponds the number of selectable cases or combinable cases for N nodes included in the single block, and N is a predetermined natural number.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein each of the pre-stored blocks comprises at least one sub block, the number of the at least one sub block within a single block corresponds the number of selectable cases or combinable cases for N nodes included in the single block, and N is a predetermined natural number.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 18 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“wherein the performance measurement information comprises latency information.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
--“wherein the performance measurement information comprises latency information.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The claim 19 recites is rejected for the same reason as the claim 1, since these claims recite the same limitations.
The claim 20 recites is rejected for the same reason as the claim 1, since these claims recite the same limitations.
The claim 21 recites:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
“wherein the similarity is expressed in a vectorized form in a vector space and is based on one or more of. whether there is a node having attributes corresponding to attributes of the query node; whether there is a node having identification information corresponding to identification information of the query node; whether there is a node capable of replacing a function of the query node; or whether there is a connection relationship corresponding to a connection relationship between the query node and the query edge.” This is a mental process, the human mind can express the similarity vectorized form in the vector space and determine whether node having attributes with the query node or not, whether the connection between the nodes having the attribute associates with query edge (Observation/Evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis:
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 22 recites:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
“wherein determining the at least one target block comprises: based on the configuration corresponding to the query configuration not existing in the stored blocks, determining a block in the stored blocks having an attribute which is mutually replaceable with an attribute of the query node as the at least one target block to be used for obtaining the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query among the stored blocks.” This is a mental process; the human mind can determine the target block based on whether the query configuration not existing in the stored block, and determining if the block stored in the block can be replaced with the attribute in the query node is used to obtain the benchmark prediction result, (observation/Evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis:
No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 23 recites:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
“determining, based on a quantitative difference value between attributes of a target node in the target block and the query node, a replacement value between the target node in the target block, and the query node, and applying the replacement value to the performance measurement information assigned to the target block to obtain the benchmark prediction result corresponding to the benchmark query.