CTNF 18/662,241 CTNF 94441 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claims 1-11: Step 1 Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1-11 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong One Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claim 1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions. The abstract idea is also grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. A method comprising: obtaining data indicating a plurality of elements, individual elements of the plurality of elements being associated with a respective functionality of a system ; determining operational dependencies corresponding to individual elements of the plurality of elements in relation to one or more other individual elements of the plurality of elements indicated by the data; and generating a model of the system based at least on the obtained data, the plurality of elements, and the operational dependencies; receiving one or more inputs indicating a modification or a query related to the model; and generating a visualization representing one or more portions of the generated model indicated by the one or more inputs. Step 2A, Prong Two Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). 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, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above. Step 2B Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis. Dependent Claims Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the obtained data includes: first data that indicates structural relationships between one or more elements of the plurality of elements, the structural relationships indicating one or more software elements or hardware components whose operation depends on one or more operations of the plurality of elements; and second data that indicates behavioral relationships between one or more elements of the plurality of elements, the behavioral relationships indicating operations performed using the plurality of elements and a subset of the plurality of elements affected by the operations performed. Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the first data further includes data indicating: one or more execution environments including one or more hardware components associated with executing one or more elements of the plurality of elements; one or more links indicating possible interaction between two or more elements of the plurality of elements; and a level of abstraction corresponding to one or more elements of the plurality of elements and the one or more execution environments . Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. determining operational dependencies and structural dependencies corresponding to the plurality of elements in relation to one or more elements of the other plurality of elements, the one or more execution environments , and the level of abstraction; and generating the model of the system based at least on the first data, the determined operational dependencies, and the determined structural dependencies, wherein the generated model is configured to be modified based at least on the level of abstraction. Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the generated model is an architectural model that is configured to be modified based at least on the level of abstraction. Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the second data further includes data indicating: one or more logical interfaces each representing one or more interactions between the one or more elements; one or more virtual interfaces each indicating a boundary via which the one or more elements interact; one or more interactions between the one or more interfaces and one or more elements of the plurality of elements corresponding to the system ; and a level of abstraction corresponding to the one or more logical interfaces, the one or more virtual interfaces , and the one or more interactions. Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. determining a linear progression of events based at least on the second data, wherein an event in the determined linear progression of events is defined by an interaction between two or more elements of the plurality of elements; and generating the model of the system based at least on the first data, the second data, the determined linear progression, and the level of abstraction. Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the generated model is a behavioral model that is configured to be modified based at least on the level of abstraction. Claim 9 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. obtaining input for the level of abstraction; and generating a visualization of the system based at least on the behavioral model and the obtained input. Claim 10 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. iteratively obtaining first data and second data, wherein the first data and the second data are verified against previously obtained first data and previously obtained second data; alerting to first data and second data that does not comport with the previously obtained first data and the previously obtained second data; and iteratively generating architectural models or behavioral models based at least on the iteratively obtained first data and the iteratively obtained second data. Claim 11 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the input includes an indication of at least one of a particular element, a virtual interface , a level of abstraction, or an execution environment . Claims 12-16: Step 1 Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 12-16 are directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong One Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claim 12 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions. The abstract idea is also grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. A system comprising: one or more processors comprising processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: obtaining first data indicating a plurality of elements, individual elements of the plurality of elements being associated with a respective functionality of a system , the first data indicating structural relationships between one or more elements of the plurality of elements, the structural relationship indicating one or more software elements or hardware components whose operation depends on one or more operations of the plurality of elements; and obtaining second data that indicates behavioral relationships between one or more elements of the plurality of elements, the behavioral relationships indicating operations performed using the plurality of elements and a subset of the plurality of elements affected by the operations performed; determining operational dependencies and structural dependencies corresponding to individual elements of the plurality of elements in relation to one or more other individual elements of the other plurality of elements; and generating a model of the system based at least on the first data, the second data, the operational dependencies, and the structural dependencies; receiving one or more inputs indicating a modification or a query related to the model; generating a visualization representing one or more portions of the generated model indicated by the one or more inputs. Step 2A, Prong Two Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). 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, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above. Step 2B Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis. Dependent Claims Claim 13 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the second data further includes data indicating: one or more logical interfaces, representing one or more interactions between the one or more elements; one or more virtual interfaces , each indicating a boundary via which the one or more elements interact; one or more interactions between the one or more interfaces and one or more elements of the plurality of elements corresponding to the system ; and a level of abstraction corresponding to the one or more logical interfaces, the one or more virtual interfaces , and the one or more interactions. Claim 14 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. determining a linear progression of events based at least on the second data, wherein an event in the determined linear progression of events is defined by an interaction between two or more elements of the plurality of elements; and generating the model of the system based at least on the first data, the second data, the determined linear progression, and the level of abstraction. Claim 15 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. iteratively obtaining first data and second data, wherein the first data and the second data is verified against previously obtained first data and second data; alerting to first data and second data that does not comport with the previously obtained first data and second data; and iteratively generating architectural models or behavioral models based at least on the iteratively obtained first data and second data. Claim 16 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the input includes an indication of at least one of a particular element, a virtual interface , a level of abstraction, or an execution environment . Claims 17-20: Step 1 Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 17-20 are directed to a computer-implemented processor (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong One Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claim 17 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions. The abstract idea is also grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. A processor comprising processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: obtaining first data indicating a plurality of elements, individual elements of the plurality of elements being associated with a respective functionality of a system , the first data indicating structural relationships between one or more elements of the plurality of elements, the structural relationships individually indicating one or more software elements or hardware components whose operation depends on one or more operations of the plurality of elements; and obtaining second data that indicates behavioral relationships between one or more elements of the plurality of elements, the behavioral relationships indicating operations performed using the plurality of elements and a subset of the plurality of elements affected by the operations performed; determining operational dependencies and structural dependencies corresponding to individual elements of the plurality of elements in relation to one or more other individual elements of the other plurality of elements; and generating a model of the system based at least on the first data, the second data, the determined operational dependencies, and the determined structural dependencies. Step 2A, Prong Two Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). 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, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above. Step 2B Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis. Dependent Claims Claim 18 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the second data further includes data indicating: one or more logical interfaces, representing one or more interactions between the one or more elements; one or more virtual interfaces , each indicating a boundary via which the one or more elements interact; one or more interactions between the one or more interfaces and one or more elements of the plurality of elements corresponding to the system ; and a level of abstraction corresponding to the one or more logical interfaces, the one or more virtual interfaces , and the one or more interactions. Claim 19 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. the operations further comprising: determining a linear progression of events based at least on the second data, wherein an event in the determined linear progression of events is defined by an interaction between two or more elements of the plurality of elements; and generating the model of the system based at least on the first data, the second data, the determined linear progression, and the level of abstraction. Claim 20 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes obtaining data to determine dependencies and generating a model, and generating a visualization representing the model and a received input relevant to the model, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0026-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0054, 0075, 0091, 0095, 00113-00249). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. the operations further comprising: iteratively obtaining first data and second data, wherein the first data and the second data is verified against previously obtained first data and second data; alerting to first data and second data that does not comport with the previously obtained first data and second data; and iteratively generating architectural models or behavioral models based at least on the iteratively obtained first data and second data. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US 2023/0097169 A1 to Dwivedi et al. (“Dwivedi”) . Claim 1: Dwivedi discloses a method comprising: obtaining data indicating a plurality of elements, individual elements of the plurality of elements being associated with a respective functionality of a system; (0073-0084, 0094-0113) determining operational dependencies corresponding to individual elements of the plurality of elements in relation to one or more other individual elements of the plurality of elements indicated by the data; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) generating a model of the system based at least on the obtained data, the plurality of elements, and the operational dependencies; (0073-0084, 0094-0113) receiving one or more inputs indicating a modification or a query related to the model; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) generating a visualization representing one or more portions of the generated model indicated by the one or more inputs. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 2: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 1. Dwivedi further discloses: wherein the obtained data includes: first data that indicates structural relationships between one or more elements of the plurality of elements, the structural relationships indicating one or more software elements or hardware components whose operation depends on one or more operations of the plurality of elements; and second data that indicates behavioral relationships between one or more elements of the plurality of elements, the behavioral relationships indicating operations performed using the plurality of elements and a subset of the plurality of elements affected by the operations performed. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 3: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 2. Dwivedi further discloses: wherein the first data further includes data indicating: one or more execution environments including one or more hardware components associated with executing one or more elements of the plurality of elements; one or more links indicating possible interaction between two or more elements of the plurality of elements; and a level of abstraction corresponding to one or more elements of the plurality of elements and the one or more execution environments. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 4: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 3. Dwivedi further discloses: determining operational dependencies and structural dependencies corresponding to the plurality of elements in relation to one or more elements of the other plurality of elements, the one or more execution environments, and the level of abstraction; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) generating the model of the system based at least on the first data, the determined operational dependencies, and the determined structural dependencies, wherein the generated model is configured to be modified based at least on the level of abstraction. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 5: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 4. Dwivedi further discloses: wherein the generated model is an architectural model that is configured to be modified based at least on the level of abstraction. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 6: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 2. Dwivedi further discloses: wherein the second data further includes data indicating: one or more logical interfaces each representing one or more interactions between the one or more elements; one or more virtual interfaces each indicating a boundary via which the one or more elements interact; one or more interactions between the one or more interfaces and one or more elements of the plurality of elements corresponding to the system; and a level of abstraction corresponding to the one or more logical interfaces, the one or more virtual interfaces, and the one or more interactions. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 7: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 6. Dwivedi further discloses: determining a linear progression of events based at least on the second data, wherein an event in the determined linear progression of events is defined by an interaction between two or more elements of the plurality of elements; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) generating the model of the system based at least on the first data, the second data, the determined linear progression, and the level of abstraction. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 8: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 7. Dwivedi further discloses: wherein the generated model is a behavioral model that is configured to be modified based at least on the level of abstraction. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 9: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 8. Dwivedi further discloses: obtaining input for the level of abstraction; and generating a visualization of the system based at least on the behavioral model and the obtained input. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 10: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 2. Dwivedi further discloses: iteratively obtaining first data and second data, wherein the first data and the second data are verified against previously obtained first data and previously obtained second data; (0073-0084, 0094-0113) alerting to first data and second data that does not comport with the previously obtained first data and the previously obtained second data; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) iteratively generating architectural models or behavioral models based at least on the iteratively obtained first data and the iteratively obtained second data. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 11: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 1. Dwivedi further discloses: wherein the input includes an indication of at least one of a particular element, a virtual interface, a level of abstraction, or an execution environment. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 12: Dwivedi discloses a system comprising: one or more processors comprising processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: obtaining first data indicating a plurality of elements, individual elements of the plurality of elements being associated with a respective functionality of a system, the first data indicating structural relationships between one or more elements of the plurality of elements, the structural relationship indicating one or more software elements or hardware components whose operation depends on one or more operations of the plurality of elements; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) obtaining second data that indicates behavioral relationships between one or more elements of the plurality of elements, the behavioral relationships indicating operations performed using the plurality of elements and a subset of the plurality of elements affected by the operations performed; (0073-0084, 0094-0113) determining operational dependencies and structural dependencies corresponding to individual elements of the plurality of elements in relation to one or more other individual elements of the other plurality of elements; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) generating a model of the system based at least on the first data, the second data, the operational dependencies, and the structural dependencies; (0073-0084, 0094-0113) receiving one or more inputs indicating a modification or a query related to the model; (0073-0084, 0094-0113) generating a visualization representing one or more portions of the generated model indicated by the one or more inputs. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 13: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 12. Dwivedi further discloses: wherein the second data further includes data indicating: (0073-0084, 0094-0113) one or more logical interfaces, representing one or more interactions between the one or more elements; (0073-0084, 0094-0113) one or more virtual interfaces, each indicating a boundary via which the one or more elements interact; (0073-0084, 0094-0113) one or more interactions between the one or more interfaces and one or more elements of the plurality of elements corresponding to the system; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) a level of abstraction corresponding to the one or more logical interfaces, the one or more virtual interfaces, and the one or more interactions. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 14: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 13. Dwivedi further discloses: determining a linear progression of events based at least on the second data, wherein an event in the determined linear progression of events is defined by an interaction between two or more elements of the plurality of elements; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) generating the model of the system based at least on the first data, the second data, the determined linear progression, and the level of abstraction. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 15: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 12. Dwivedi further discloses: iteratively obtaining first data and second data, wherein the first data and the second data is verified against previously obtained first data and second data; (0073-0084, 0094-0113) alerting to first data and second data that does not comport with the previously obtained first data and second data; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) iteratively generating architectural models or behavioral models based at least on the iteratively obtained first data and second data. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 16: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 12. Dwivedi further discloses: wherein the input includes an indication of at least one of a particular element, a virtual interface, a level of abstraction, or an execution environment. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 17: Dwivedi discloses a processor comprising: processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: obtaining first data indicating a plurality of elements, individual elements of the plurality of elements being associated with a respective functionality of a system, the first data indicating structural relationships between one or more elements of the plurality of elements, the structural relationships individually indicating one or more software elements or hardware components whose operation depends on one or more operations of the plurality of elements; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) obtaining second data that indicates behavioral relationships between one or more elements of the plurality of elements, the behavioral relationships indicating operations performed using the plurality of elements and a subset of the plurality of elements affected by the operations performed; (0073-0084, 0094-0113) determining operational dependencies and structural dependencies corresponding to individual elements of the plurality of elements in relation to one or more other individual elements of the other plurality of elements; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) generating a model of the system based at least on the first data, the second data, the determined operational dependencies, and the determined structural dependencies. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 18: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 17. Dwivedi further discloses: wherein the second data further includes data indicating: one or more logical interfaces, representing one or more interactions between the one or more elements; one or more virtual interfaces, each indicating a boundary via which the one or more elements interact; one or more interactions between the one or more interfaces and one or more elements of the plurality of elements corresponding to the system; and a level of abstraction corresponding to the one or more logical interfaces, the one or more virtual interfaces, and the one or more interactions. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 19: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 18. Dwivedi further discloses: the operations further comprising: determining a linear progression of events based at least on the second data, wherein an event in the determined linear progression of events is defined by an interaction between two or more elements of the plurality of elements; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) generating the model of the system based at least on the first data, the second data, the determined linear progression, and the level of abstraction. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Claim 20: Dwivedi discloses all limitations of claim 17. Dwivedi further discloses: the operations further comprising: iteratively obtaining first data and second data, wherein the first data and the second data is verified against previously obtained first data and second data; (0073-0084, 0094-0113) alerting to first data and second data that does not comport with the previously obtained first data and second data; and (0073-0084, 0094-0113) iteratively generating architectural models or behavioral models based at least on the iteratively obtained first data and second data. (0073-0084, 0094-0113) Conclusion 07-96 The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0145208 A1 to Bobu et al. discloses: Apparatuses, systems, and techniques to train a machine learning model. In at least one embodiment, a first machine learning model is trained to infer a concept based on first information, training data is labeled using the first machine learning model, and a second machine learning model is trained to infer the concept using the labeled training data. US 2021/0252698 A1 to Paxton et al. discloses: Apparatuses, systems, and techniques to facilitate robotic execution using neural networks to perform complex, multi-step tasks in situations for which a robot has not been trained. In at least one embodiment, a hierarchical model is trained to infer a logical state from a world state and determine executable actions for a robot based on that logical state. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00. 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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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. /ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697 Application/Control Number: 18/662,241 Page 2 Art Unit: 3697
Prosecution Insights