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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 02/13/2026.
Claims 1-74 have been canceled.
Claims 75-93 are currently pending and have been examined here.
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 75-93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 75 and 85 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine and a process, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 75 and 85 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 75 and 85, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receiving. . . a first artificial intelligence or machine learning contributor selection conflict resolution registration message and registering the first of the plurality of second network entities for artificial intelligence or machine learning contributor selection conflict resolution; (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a conflict resolution message and register entities)
receiving. . . a second artificial intelligence or machine learning contributor selection conflict resolution registration message and registering the second of the plurality of second network entities for artificial intelligence or machine learning contributor selection conflict resolution; (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a conflict resolution message and register entities)
receiving. . . a first artificial intelligence or machine learning contributor selection conflict resolution request including (i) a first federated learning distributed node candidate list including at least one first federated learning distributed node in the network, each of the at least one first federated learning distributed node having trustworthiness capabilities satisfying first artificial intelligence or machine learning trustworthiness requirement criteria and being associated with a respective rank in the first federated learning distributed node candidate list,(ii) information on the first artificial intelligence or machine learning trustworthiness requirement criteria, and (iii) information on at least one previously selected first federated learning distributed node previously selected for artificial intelligence or machine learning contribution; (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a conflict resolution request including this information)
receiving. . . a second artificial intelligence or machine learning contributor selection conflict resolution request including (i) a second federated learning distributed node candidate list including at least one second federated learning distributed node in the network, each of the at least one second federated learning distributed node having trustworthiness capabilities satisfying second artificial intelligence or machine learning trustworthiness requirement criteria and being associated with a respective rank in the second federated learning distributed node candidate list, (ii) information on the second artificial intelligence or machine learning trustworthiness requirement criteria, and (iii) information on at least one previously selected second federated learning distributed node previously selected for artificial intelligence or machine learning contribution; (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a conflict resolution request including this information)
analyzing the first federated learning distributed node candidate list and the second federated learning distributed node candidate list; (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could analyze first and second lists)
determining whether a federated learning distributed node is present:(i) the first federated learning distributed node candidate list and the second federated learning distributed node candidate list; (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether nodes are present in lists)
(ii) the first federated learning distributed node candidate list and in the at least one previously selected second federated learning distributed node; or (iii) the second federated learning distributed node candidate list and in the at least one previously selected first federated learning distributed node; (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether nodes are present in lists)
setting any such federated learning distributed node as at least one conflicting federated learning distributed node; (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could set nodes as conflicting nodes)
updating, based on the information included in the first and second artificial intelligence or machine learning contributor selection conflict resolution requests, the first federated learning distributed node candidate list and the second federated learning distributed node candidate list by: (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could update lists by removing conflicting nodes based on whether requirement criteria are higher)
removing the at least one conflicting federated learning distributed node from the first federated learning distributed node candidate list if the second artificial intelligence or machine learning trustworthiness requirement criteria are higher than the first artificial intelligence or machine learning trustworthiness requirement criteria; (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could update lists by removing conflicting nodes based on whether requirement criteria are higher)
and removing the at least one conflicting federated learning distributed node from the second federated learning distributed node candidate list if the first artificial intelligence or machine learning trustworthiness requirement criteria are higher than the second artificial intelligence or machine learning trustworthiness requirement criteria; (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could update lists by removing conflicting nodes based on whether requirement criteria are higher)
transmitting. . . a first artificial intelligence or machine learning contributor selection conflict resolution response including an updated first federated learning distributed node candidate list; (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since, but for the requirement to transmit this information electronically, a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send conflict resolution responses comprising updated lists)
and transmitting. . . . a second artificial intelligence or machine learning contributor selection conflict resolution response including an updated second federated learning distributed node candidate list. (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since, but for the requirement to transmit this information electronically, a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could ______________)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the above set of steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
An apparatus comprising: (claim 75; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a processor; (claim 75; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a memory comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the following operations: (claim 75; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . from a first of a plurality of second network entities managing artificial intelligence or machine learning trustworthiness in artificial intelligence or machine learning pipelines in the network. . . (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . from a second of the plurality of second network entities. . . (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . towards the first of the plurality of second network entities. . . (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . towards the second of the plurality of second network entities. . . (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . transmitting. . . (claims 75, 85; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 75 and 85 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 75 and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 76-84 and 86-94, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 76 and 86:
wherein the first artificial intelligence or machine learning trustworthiness requirement criteria and the second artificial intelligence or machine learning trustworthiness requirement criteria each comprise fairness requirements, explainability requirements, and robustness requirements.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the trustworthiness criteria used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 77 and 87:
wherein each federated learning distributed node in the first and second federated learning distributed node candidate lists is ranked according to a composite trustworthiness score derived from a combination of fairness, explainability, and robustness metrics.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could rank lists according to a composite trustworthiness score derived from these metrics.
Claims 78 and 88:
wherein the first and second artificial intelligence or machine learning contributor selection conflict resolution requests each further comprise a desired artificial intelligence quality-of-trustworthiness (Al QoT) class identifier associated with a respective artificial intelligence or machine learning pipeline.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the selection conflict requests used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 79 and 89:
wherein determining which artificial intelligence or machine learning trustworthiness requirement criteria are higher comprises comparing the respective Al QoT class identifiers of the first and second artificial intelligence or machine learning pipelines.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could compare AI QoT identifiers of pipelines.
Claims 80 and 90:
wherein the updating further comprises maintaining rank order of remaining federated learning distributed nodes in each updated federated learning distributed node candidate list after removal of the at least one conflicting federated learning distributed node.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could maintain rank order of nodes after removing other nodes.
Claims 81 and 91:
wherein the conflict resolution registration messages further include an identifier of an artificial intelligence pipeline managed by the respective second network entity, and wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to perform the following operations: storing a mapping between registered second network entities and corresponding artificial intelligence pipelines.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store a mapping between entities and pipelines and receive identifiers in registration messages.
Claims 82 and 92:
wherein analyzing the first and second federated learning distributed node candidate lists further comprises comparing time validity information included in the first and second artificial intelligence or machine learning contributor selection conflict resolution requests.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could compare time validity information included in conflict resolution requests.
Claims 83 and 93:
wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to perform the following operations: generating, within the first and second artificial intelligence or machine learning contributor selection conflict resolution responses, information indicating that the at least one conflicting federated learning distributed node was removed due to a higher trustworthiness requirement of another artificial intelligence or machine learning pipeline.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate information indicating that a node was removed due to a higher trustworthiness requirement.
Claims 84 and 94:
wherein the apparatus is implemented as a federated learning coordinator configured to coordinate contributor selection across a plurality of federated learning aggregators associated with different artificial intelligence or machine learning pipelines within a cognitive autonomous network.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a cognitive autonomous network, since this element is recited at a high level of generality, the outcome of using this elements is recited without providing details as to how the outcome is achieved, and since the element is merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 76-84 and 86-94, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights