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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 15/858,943, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The instant application shares the same disclosure as the ’943 application. As this disclosure lacks sufficient support for enablement and written description of the instant claims per the grounds of rejection below, the ’943 application likewise fails to provide adequate support or enablement for the instant claims.
Furthermore, the claim of priority to the ’943 application appears as though it should be a divisional not a continuation, as the instant application appears to claim only subject matter directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from that claimed in the ’943 application.
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 15/858,936, filed 29 December 2017, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
That being said, the ’936 application shares a disclosure with the ’943 application, and this priority claim if made will be rejected for the same reasons as the priority claim to the ’943 application is rejected unless the below rejections under 35 USC § 112 are overcome over the shared disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1, 10, and 11 recite “generating a first subset of potential values for the detected variable based on the determined variance.” This is not enabled.
This limitation is generic. That is, it covers every means for taking a determined variance as input and producing potential values for the detected variable.
The relationship between variance and potential values is central to the invention. That is, the invention relies on the ability to determine new values from the variance in order to achieve the effect of avoiding neural network training bias. Specification ¶ [0064].
This relationship between variance and generating new training data is not conventional in training neural networks.
There is no evidence on the record that suggests that there is a natural relationship between variance and training.
Applicant provides, as sole direction, the idea that from a query “select sum(Income) from data where sales between 18 and 79” and a “real full data set may have values ranging between 0 and 1,000” that a variance (of what? 18 and 79? 0 and 1000? Whatever exists in the data set? Something else altogether?) can be used to change the range 18 and 79 to 24 and 82, or to 312 and 735. Specification ¶¶ [0063]-[0065]. That is, this is a black box disclosure. Input and output are described, but no steps, procedure, or algorithm for generating the values from the variance is disclosed.
Therefore, Applicant provides no working examples.
Absent guidance, it is unclear how to get from a range of 18 to 79 to either 24 and 82 or 312 and 735 such that experimentation to replicate these results is undue.
As such, this limitation is not enabled.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 10, and 11 recite “generating a first subset of potential values for the detected variable based on the determined variance.”
Applicant provides two examples of this generation: that a variance can be used to change the range 18 and 79 to 24 and 82, or to 312 and 735. Specification ¶¶ [0063]-[0065]. However, the specification is silent as to steps, procedures, acts, or algorithms to perform this. The description of these two embodiments is not sufficient disclosure such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Applicant was in possession of this claimed subject matter as opposed to the idea of possessing this subject matter. MPEP § 2161.01. As such, this limitation lacks written description.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 recite “determining a variance of the variable.” It is unclear whether this variance is the variance of the variable in the query pairs or in the database. The specification states “At S530, a variance of the data set is determined, where a variance includes a subset of the determined variable” but also “the variance of the training queries is determined to take into account this potential bias.” It is unclear which variance of the variable – the variance of the variable in the data set or the variance of the variable in the training queries – is determined.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 recite “wherein each potential value is different from the response of each query pair.” This is unclear. The values are in the queries of the query pairs not in the responses of the query pairs. For the purposes of examination, “the response” is read as “the value of the variable of the query.”
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 1-19 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, 10, and 11:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “receiving a plurality of query pairs, each query pair of the plurality of query pairs including a database query and a response, the response generated by executing the database query on a database,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a data-gathering operation that can be done via interpersonal communication by someone merely handing input data written on a piece of paper to another. Cf. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 8965 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). As well, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “receiving” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to what queries and responses are on hand. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “detecting a variable in each query of each query pair,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “detecting” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, what variables are present in the query, e.g., that “select sum(Income) from data where sales between 18 and 79” contains the variable “sales.” This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining a variance of the variable,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a calculation, i.e., calculating variance. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). As well, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to a variance of the variable on any basis. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating a first subset of potential values for the detected variable based on the determined variance, wherein each potential value is different from the response of each query pair,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, and on a subjective basis, as to the value using the variance. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating a plurality of training queries, each training query based on a database query of a query pair of the plurality of query pairs and a corresponding potential value from the first subset,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, and on a subjective basis, as to the contents of the training queries. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “executing each training query to generate a training response,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “executing” and “generating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, what the response to the generated query is. 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).
For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely generating a synthetic training set for machine learning. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B).
The abstract idea of generating a synthetic training set for machine learning is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “training the RNN based on the plurality of training queries and a corresponding training response,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of training the RNN is recited without detail of how the RNN is trained, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because it recites only the idea of generating a synthetic training set for machine learning based on a determined variance of a variable in a natural training set without details of how the variance is determined, how the potential values are generated from the variance, how the queries are generated from the potential values, how the queries are executed, or how the RNN is trained, and the outcome of training the RNN do not appear to be affected based on the training query and training response being generated by the claimed process or if the training query and training response naturally occurred in the received plurality of query pairs; that the improvement comes solely from the abstract idea of generating the synthetic training data and not from an improvement to training itself. 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 the recited 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, “training the RNN based on the plurality of training queries and a corresponding training response,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because training a RNN at a high level of generality is described in the prior art, e.g., Khandelwal et al., Training RNN and It’s Variants Using Sliding Window Technique, Abstract (“We have trained the models using conventional training technique”), as conventional. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(3)(C).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the recited abstract idea, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the recited 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 recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, as the claim(s) recites an abstract idea, is directed to the recited abstract idea, and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 2 and 12:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “adjusting a weight value of a neuron of the RNN based on the generated response from the RNN and the training response,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation, i.e., using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, i.e., the weight. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). As well, this limitation, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “adjusting” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, and on a subjective basis, as to the weight. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of adjusting a weight value of a neuron of the RNN based on the generated response from the RNN and the training response is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “generating a response from the RNN based on providing the RNN with a training query of the plurality of training queries,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the RNN generating a response is recited without detail of how the RNN generates the response, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering of the response. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of training the RNN by adjusting weights is recited without details of how the weights are adjusted such that it recites merely the idea of training a RNN as opposed to a particular solution or a particular way of training the RNN. 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 the recited 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, “generating a response from the RNN based on providing the RNN with a training query of the plurality of training queries,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because using a trained RNN at a high level of generality is described in the prior art, e.g., Khandelwal et al., Training RNN and It’s Variants Using Sliding Window Technique, Abstract (“We have trained the models using conventional training technique”), as conventional. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(3)(C).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the recited abstract idea, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the recited 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 recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, as the claim(s) recites an abstract idea, is directed to the recited abstract idea, and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 3 and 13:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “generating an error function result based on the generated response from the RNN and the training response,” as drafted, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a calculation, i.e., calculating an error function result. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “adjusting the weight value to minimize the error function result,” as drafted, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mathematical relationship between the error function result and the weight value. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). As well, this limitation, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “adjusting” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the weight value and a minimization of the error function result. 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).
For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely adjusting a weight value to minimize an error function result. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. 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 4 and 14:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “providing a database query to the trained RNN,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a data-gathering operation that can be done via interpersonal communication by someone merely handing input data written on a piece of paper to another. Cf. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 8965 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). As well, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “providing” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to what the database query is. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of providing a database query to a trained RNN is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “configuring the trained RNN to process the database query to generate a predicted result,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the trained RNN processing the database query to generate a predicted result is recited without details of how the trained RNN generates the predicted result, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering of the prediction result. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the RNN is invoked as a tool to generate predicted results of a database query without specifying how the RNN generates predicted results such that it recites merely the idea of using a trained RNN to generate results as opposed to a particular solution or a particular way for the RNN to generate results. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “configuring the trained RNN to process the database query to generate a predicted result,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because using a trained RNN at a high level of generality is described in the prior art, e.g., Khandelwal et al., Training RNN and It’s Variants Using Sliding Window Technique, Abstract (“We have trained the models using conventional training technique”), as conventional. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(3)(C).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the recited abstract idea, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the recited 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 recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, as the claim(s) recites an abstract idea, is directed to the recited abstract idea, and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 5 and 15:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “executing the provided database query on the database to generate a real result,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “executing” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, what the response to the provided query is. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating an output based on the predicted result and the real result,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, and on a subjective basis what the output is. 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).
For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely generating an output based on a predicted result and a real result. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. 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 16:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “continuously generating training queries; and continuously training the RNN based on the generated training queries,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “continuously generating” and “continuously training,” i.e., that the generating and training is continuous, encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, to repeatedly do something i.e., judging that the action is complete and to do it again. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. 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 7 and 17:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “continuously generating training queries until a predetermined number of training queries is generated,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “continuously generating,” i.e., that the generating is continuous, encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, to repeatedly do something i.e., judging that the action is complete and to do it again, until the condition is judged to be met. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. 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 and 18:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “continuously training the RNN until an error function result is below a predetermined threshold,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “continuously generating,” i.e., that the generating is continuous, encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, to repeatedly do something i.e., judging that the action is complete and to do it again, until the condition is judged to be met. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. 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 9 and 19:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “continuously generating training queries until the error function result is below the predetermined threshold,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “continuously generating,” i.e., that the generating is continuous, encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, to repeatedly do something i.e., judging that the action is complete and to do it again, until the condition is judged to be met. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,256,985, which shares relevant disclosure with the instant application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the ’985 patent overlap in scope and one of ordinary skill in the art would, upon reading the ’985 patent, 8:40-9:47, immediately envisage the instant invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,561,575, which shares relevant disclosure with the instant application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the ’575 patent overlap in scope and one of ordinary skill in the art would, upon reading the ’575 patent, 8:65-9:43, immediately envisage the instant invention.
Conclusion
Generating training queries based on a database query of a query pair of the database query and a response generated by executing the database query on a database using a value for a variable detected in the database query based on a potential value of the variable based on a determined variance of the detected variable is novel, non-obvious, and abstract, and therefore not patentable.
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