DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Amended claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “generating a loss indicating a difference between output tokens obtained by applying the transformer architecture to at least input tokens and the known sentiments for the training instance”.
A "a loss" is not described in the Specification. A loss function (a mathematical process that quantifies the error margin between a model's prediction and the actual target value) is described in the Specification.
The Specification's only relevant part provides:
[0091] The relevancy module 225 determines a loss function across the one or more output tokens that indicates a difference (e.g., logit difference) between tokens in the label and the output tokens generated by the forward pass of the transformer model. As an example, the loss function may be an NLP loss for each token combined across one or more output tokens generated for the label. The relevancy module 225 obtains one or more error terms from the loss function and performs backpropagation to update parameters of the transformer architecture.
[0097] The machine learning training module 230 may apply an iterative process to train a machine learning model whereby the machine learning training module 230 trains the machine learning model on each of the set of training examples. To train a machine learning model based on a training example, the machine learning training module 230 applies the machine learning model to the input data in the training example to generate an output. The machine learning training module 230 scores the output from the machine learning model using a loss function. A loss function is a function that generates a score for the output of the machine learning model such that the score is higher when the machine learning model performs poorly and lower when the machine learning model performs well. In cases where the training example includes a label, the loss function is also based on the label for the training example. Some example loss functions include the mean square error function, the mean absolute error, hinge loss function, and the cross entropy loss function. The machine learning training module 230 updates the set of parameters for the machine learning model based on the score generated by the loss function.
For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the term “loss” as a “loss function”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to a practical application constituting a technical improvement/technological solution, analogizing to Example 39. Example 39 differs greatly in its result— improving facial detection robustness and addressing technical limitations in prior systems regarding image distortions, variations in scale, and rotation (which has no non-technological analog) vs. obtaining feedback comments, generating sentiment scores, generating relevance scores and providing replacement items (abstract commercial/marketing output that exists even without/separate from technology).
The problem highlighted in the Arguments is at the abstract layer of organizing human activities, not one borne out of technology. The problems noted in Specification do not highlight any failures of modern computers. These are business implementation problems and do not set forth any deficiencies that are particular to computer capabilities or any other technology. "In sum, 'software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. But to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself." Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (emphasis added).
The elements are all abstract and when viewed in combination only amount to applying the abstract idea on generic computers. "Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added).
Rather, they merely describe the commercial activities that together comprise the abstract idea. An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, '[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an inventive concept is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
Accordingly, the rejection is 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 non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method. Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 15 recites a system.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of providing replacement items for an ordered item. This idea is described by the following steps:
identifying, for an ordered item, one or more replacement items for the ordered item that were each provided as replacement items for the ordered item;
obtaining user feedback data on the one or more replacement items, the user feedback data comprising one or more comments in text form;
for each comment, specifying a request to infer a sentiment on the comment;
obtaining feedback comments for a known replacement item for an item, and a corresponding label indicating a known sentiment for the replacement item from the feedback comments;
receiving a response;
generating sentiment scores for the ordered item and the one or more replacement items based on the inferred sentiments;
generating relevance scores for the one or more replacement items, the one or more replacement items, and the sentiment scores; and
providing a set of replacement items with relevance scores above the threshold to the user based on the sentiment scores or the relevance scores for the replacement item.
Claims 8 and 15 recite equivalent limitations.
This idea falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas as it is directed towards commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors (i.e., providing a replacement item based on the inferred sentiment on the comments).
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 8 and 15 recite a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraph 0102) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 additionally recite using a machine-learned language model and generating a loss function (mathematical process). However, the machine-learned models and a loss function are recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to perform the process (i.e., providing a replacement item based on the inferred sentiment on the comments) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 1, 8 and 15 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 8 and 15 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claims 1
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of:
identifying, for an ordered item, one or more replacement items for the ordered item that were each provided as replacement items for the ordered item; obtaining user feedback data on the one or more replacement items, the user feedback data comprising one or more comments in text form; for each comment, generating a prompt for input to a machine-learned language model, the prompt specifying a request to infer a sentiment on the comment; providing the prompt to a model serving system for execution by the machine-learned language model, wherein the machine-learned language model is configured as a transformer architecture, wherein parameters of the transformer architecture are finetuned by: obtaining at least a training instance including feedback comments for a known replacement item for an item, and a corresponding label indicating a known sentiment for the replacement item from the feedback comments, generating a loss indicating a difference between output tokens obtained by applying the transformer architecture to at least input tokens and the known sentiment for the training instance, and updating the parameters of the transformer architecture to reduce the loss; receiving, from the model serving system, a response generated by executing the machine-learned language model on the prompt; generating sentiment scores for the ordered item and the one or more replacement items based on the inferred sentiments by the model serving system; generating relevance scores for the one or more replacement items by applying a relevance model to features of the ordered item, the one or more replacement items, and the sentiment scores; and providing a replacement item a set of replacement items with relevance scores above a threshold for display to the user on a user interface (UI) of a client device based on the sentiment scores or the relevance scores for the replacement item.
Claims 8 and 15 recite equivalent limitations.
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 MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights