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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 17 February 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that using self-supervised layers to output features and using a machine-learning model thereby to output representation vectors do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that these limitations do not recite an abstract idea within the Mathematical Concepts grouping. Examiner agrees. The claimed self-supervised layers’ output of first features corresponding to a 2-D image included in the first portion of the plurality of the 2-D images is not recited as being based on a relationship between variables or numbers. Nor does it recite a specific mathematical formula or equation. Nor does it recite a calculation. Indeed, the claims do not recite any specific way of determining the first features, only that whatever way is used, that it be performed by self-supervised layers as a tool. It is possible for a person to subjectively determine first features for an image. No objective means are claimed. Therefore, the self-supervised layers are invoked as a tool to perform the mental process, and therefore these limitations recite the mental process itself. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C); Specification ¶¶ [0022]-[0023] (“The supervised layers of the hybrid machine-learning model may include one or more convolutional layers, pooling layers, and/or other suitable machine-learning layers that can, in combination, ingest an input 2-D image and can generate features corresponding to the input 2-D image.”); see Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Recentive Analytics v. Fox. Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
Claim Interpretation
A “self-supervised machine-learning model” is generic computing functionality.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 9, and 15:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “executing, by the computing device, a machine-learning model to cause the machine-learning model to output a plurality of representation vectors, each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors corresponding to a different 2-D image of the plurality of 2-D images,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “outputting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a vector representation of the 2-d image. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The additional element, “executing, for each 2-D image included in the first portion of the plurality of the 2-D images, one or more self-supervised layers of the machine-learning model to cause the one or more self-supervised layers to output first features corresponding to the 2-D image,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “outputting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a vector representation of the 2-d image. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The additional element, “executing, for each 2-D image included in the second portion of the plurality of the 2-D images, the one or more self-supervised layers to output second features corresponding to the 2-D image,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “outputting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a vector representation of the 2-d image. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “executing the computing device to cause the computing device to output, based on a comparison between an embedding of the query and each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors a set of representation vectors that at least partially match the embedding,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “outputting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the similarity of the embedding and the vectors and which ones match based on a comparison. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely finding a component in a model. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of finding a component in a model is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “receiving, by a computing device, 3-D model data that includes a set of 3-D models and components included in the set of 3-D models, the components included in the set of 3-D models represented by a plurality of 2-D images, each 2-D image of the plurality of 2-D images representing a component of the components included in the set of 3-D models or a group of the components included in the set of 3-D models,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “extracting, from each 3-D model included of the set of 3-D models, a first 2-D image based on a particular view of the 3-D model, the first 2-D image included in a first portion of the plurality of the 2-D images,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “executing, for each component of the components, the machine-learning model to cause the machine-learning model to output a second 2-D image based on a particular view of the component, the second 2-D image included in a second portion of the plurality of 2-D images,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “receiving, by the computing device, a query from an entity, the query indicating a request by the entity to identify one or more 2-D images of the plurality of 2-D images that are associated with the query,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “providing, by the computing device and on a digital user interface, the one or more 2-D images of the plurality of 2-D images corresponding to the set of representation vectors,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of finding a component in a model, and mere use of machine learning as a tool to find a component in a model. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “receiving, by a computing device, 3-D model data that includes a set of 3-D models and components included in the set of 3-D models, the components included in the set of 3-D models represented by a plurality of 2-D images, each 2-D image of the plurality of 2-D images representing a component of the components included in the set of 3-D models or a group of the components included in the set of 3-D models,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “extracting, from each 3-D model included of the set of 3-D models, a first 2-D image based on a particular view of the 3-D model, the first 2-D image included in a first portion of the plurality of the 2-D images,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification ¶ [0030], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “executing, for each component of the components, the machine-learning model to cause the machine-learning model to output a second 2-D image based on a particular view of the component, the second 2-D image included in a second portion of the plurality of 2-D images,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification ¶ [0030], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “receiving, by the computing device, a query from an entity, the query indicating a request by the entity to identify one or more 2-D images of the plurality of 2-D images that are associated with the query,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “providing, by the computing device and on a digital user interface, the one or more 2-D images of the plurality of 2-D images corresponding to the set of representation vectors,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of presenting offers. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of finding a component in a model because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 2 and 10:
The abstract idea of finding a component in a model is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein receiving the 3-D model data comprises parsing each 3-D model of the set of 3-D models to identify one or more components included in the 3-D model, and wherein the one or more components are included in the components included in the set of 3-D models,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of finding a component in a model, and mere use of machine learning as a tool to find a component in a model. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein receiving the 3-D model data comprises parsing each 3-D model of the set of 3-D models to identify one or more components included in the 3-D model, and wherein the one or more components are included in the components included in the set of 3-D models,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of finding a component in a model because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 3 and 11:
The abstract idea of finding a component in a model is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein comparing the embedding to each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors comprises transforming the query into the embedding using the machine-learning model,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of generating an embedding using generic machine learning as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of finding a component in a model, and mere use of machine learning as a tool to find a component in a model. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are mere instruction to apply an exception, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein comparing the embedding to each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors comprises transforming the query into the embedding using the machine-learning model,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of finding a component in a model because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 5 and 18:
The abstract idea of finding a component in a model is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “generating the plurality of representation vectors comprises generating, using an additional self-supervised layer of the machine-learning model, the plurality of representation vectors based on the first features and the second features,” is mere instruction to apply the mental process of generating a plurality of representation vectors based on first features and second features on a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of finding a component in a model, and mere use of machine learning as a tool to find a component in a model. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are mere instructions to apply an exception, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “generating the plurality of representation vectors comprises generating, using an additional self-supervised layer of the machine-learning model, the plurality of representation vectors based on the first features and the second features,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of finding a component in a model because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 6 and 19:
The abstract idea of finding a component in a model is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “indexing the plurality of representation vectors comprises storing each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors in a data repository, wherein the plurality of representation vectors are arranged to optimize the one or more queries that involve the plurality of representation vectors,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “comparing the embedding to each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors comprises accessing the data repository to receive the plurality of representation vectors,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of finding a component in a model, and mere use of machine learning as a tool to find a component in a model. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are mere instruction to apply an exception, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “indexing the plurality of representation vectors comprises storing each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors in a data repository, wherein the plurality of representation vectors are arranged to optimize the one or more queries that involve the plurality of representation vectors,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “comparing the embedding to each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors comprises accessing the data repository to receive the plurality of representation vectors,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of finding a component in a model because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 7:
The abstract idea of finding a component in a model is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “receiving the query from an entity comprises receiving text-based input from the entity, and wherein the text-based input comprises a string of natural language or characters indicating the request by the entity to receive a particular component of a 3-D model,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering, and as selecting a particular type of data to be manipulated. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of finding a component in a model, and mere use of machine learning as a tool to find a component in a model. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “receiving the query from an entity comprises receiving text-based input from the entity, and wherein the text-based input comprises a string of natural language or characters indicating the request by the entity to receive a particular component of a 3-D model,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of finding a component in a model because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 8, 14, and 20:
The abstract idea of finding a component in a model is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “receiving subsequent input from the entity, the subsequent input indicating selection of a particular representation vector of the set of representation vectors,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “automatically populating a file associated with the entity with a component or a 3-D model that is represented by the particular representation vector of the set of representation vectors,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of finding a component in a model, and mere use of machine learning as a tool to find a component in a model. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “receiving subsequent input from the entity, the subsequent input indicating selection of a particular representation vector of the set of representation vectors,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is collecting a response to presented information that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to collect collecting user responses to provided offers. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “automatically populating a file associated with the entity with a component or a 3-D model that is represented by the particular representation vector of the set of representation vectors,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of finding a component in a model because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 13:
The abstract idea of finding a component in a model is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “generating, using an additional self-supervised layer of the machine-learning model, the plurality of representation vectors based on the first features and the second features,” is mere instruction to apply the mental process of generating a plurality of representation vectors based on first features and second features using generic machine learning as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “the operation of indexing the plurality of representation vectors comprises storing each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors in a data repository, wherein the plurality of representation vectors are arranged to optimize the one or more queries that involve the plurality of representation vectors,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “the operation of comparing the embedding to each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors comprises accessing the data repository to receive the plurality of representation vectors,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of finding a component in a model, and mere use of machine learning as a tool to find a component in a model. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or mere instruction to apply an exception, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “generating, using an additional self-supervised layer of the machine-learning model, the plurality of representation vectors based on the first features and the second features,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “the operation of indexing the plurality of representation vectors comprises storing each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors in a data repository, wherein the plurality of representation vectors are arranged to optimize the one or more queries that involve the plurality of representation vectors,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “the operation of comparing the embedding to each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors comprises accessing the data repository to receive the plurality of representation vectors,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of finding a component in a model because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 16:
The abstract idea of finding a component in a model is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the operation of receiving the 3-D model data comprises parsing each 3-D model of the set of 3-D models to identify one or more components included in the 3-D model, wherein the one or more components are included in the components included in the set of 3-D models,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “wherein comparing the embedding to each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors comprises transforming the query into the embedding using the machine-learning model,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of generating an embedding using generic machine learning as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of finding a component in a model, and mere use of machine learning as a tool to find a component in a model. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or mere instruction to apply an exception, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the operation of receiving the 3-D model data comprises parsing each 3-D model of the set of 3-D models to identify one or more components included in the 3-D model, wherein the one or more components are included in the components included in the set of 3-D models,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “wherein comparing the embedding to each representation vector of the plurality of representation vectors comprises transforming the query into the embedding using the machine-learning model,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of finding a component in a model because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Conclusion
The invention differs from that of Boulkenafed et al., EP 3 179 407 B1. The system of Boulkenafed only generates features for a model, and does not consider separately calculating features of components of the models. This is especially clear when considering a model consisting a single component, where the claimed invention will generate two feature vectors, while the teachings of Boulkenafed would only generate a single one.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights