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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claims filed on 03/27/2025.
Claims 1, 2 , 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18 are presented for examination.
Response to Argument
In reference to applicant’s argument regrading rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s Argument:
With this amendment, claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14 and 16-19 are amended taking into consideration the Examiner's suggestions. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of this rejection.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees to applicant’s argument since a claim amendment still not overcome the 101 rejection because the claim still recites the mental process are implemented by the generic computer components ( storage unit, rule generation unit, weight generation unit). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive, the rejection is still maintained.
In reference to applicant’s argument regrading rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s Argument:
Claims 1-19 were rejected 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lesnik (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0202245) in view of Kwatra (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/04192338).
The Examiner cites Lesnik as the primary prior art reference in the rejection of claims 1-19. However, the present application is a child application to Lesnik with the present application being a continuation in part of Lesnik. MPEP 2133.01 states:
“Any claim that only contains subject matter that is fully supported in compliance with the statutory requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, by the parent application of a CIP will have the effective filing date of the parent application."
Here, the Examiner's arguments that Lesnik reads on the current claims supports the fact that Lesnik, as a parent application to the present application, fully supports the claims of the present application. For that reason, the current application shares the same filing date as Lesnik making Lesnik an improper prior art reference.
Therefore, because Lesnik is not a proper prior art reference, the rejection cannot stand and should be withdrawn,
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees to applicant’s argument since the applicant’s does not provide the detail of what/where is the claim limitation is supported by the parent application or where in the specification of the parent application support the current claim limitation. Additionally, a claim limitation of the current application “processing a new data input, in response to determining that the error value is below the predetermined threshold.” does not support by the parent application 16644243. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive, the rejection is still maintained.
Furthermore, the Lesnik still teach the claim amendment filed on 03/27/2025.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skills in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non- structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are :
-“storage unit” in the claim 1,
“rule generation unit” in the claim 1, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18
“weight generation unit” in claims 1, 2, 4,
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/those being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under
35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (FP 7.30.02)
(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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are :
The claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 17, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. (FP 7.34.01)
These claims recite “storage unit”, “rule generation unit”, “weight generation unit”” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide the structure of the “storage unit”, “rule generation unit”, “weight generation unit” to perform the “store”, “retrieve, applies, process”, “ analyze, adjust”. The use of the term ““storage unit”, “rule generation unit”, “weight generation unit”” are not adequate structure for performing the “store”, “retrieve, applies, process”, “ analyze, adjust” because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by
those of ordinary skill in the art. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which unit structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skills in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (FP 7.30.01)
(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.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of store”, “retrieve, applies, process”, “ analyze, adjust by the storage unit”, “rule generation unit”, “weight generation unit””. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. (FP 7.31.01) .
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.
Step 1 analysis:
In the instant case, the claims are directed to a system (claims 1, 2, 4, 6--9), method (claims 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A analysis:
Based on the claims being determined to be within of the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), in this case the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Specifically the abstract idea of “Mental Processes/Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and mathematical concept.
The claim 1 recites
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“retrieves at least one of the plurality of data records and analyzes each one of the plurality of data records to determine at least one rule of a plurality of rules to implement to each one of the plurality of data records using at least one logic gateway a weight generating unit analyzes each applied rule and assigns a weight value to each rule” this is a mental process, the human mind can retrieve of the data record and analyze a data record and determine the particular rule to apply to the data record, (observation/Evaluation).
-“ and assigns a weight value to each rule” this is a mental process, the human mind can assign the weight value to each rule (observation/Evaluation).
-“ applies each rule of the plurality of rules to each data input of the plurality of data records to generate a plurality of results, each result corresponding to a rule of the plurality of rules;” this is a mental process, the human mind can apply the rules on the input data of plurality of the data records, (Observation/Evaluation).
-“ generating for each data input a second output, based on the plurality of results corresponding to applying the plurality of rules on the data input;” this is a mental process, the human mind can generates the output of each data input based on the results of applying the rules on the data input, (Observation/Evaluation).
-“determining an objective function ;” this limitation relates to the mathematical equation (mathematical concept).
-“ generating an error value based on each output of the plurality of data records and each second output;” this is a mental process, the human mind can generate the error values based on the output and the second output, (Observation/Evaluation).
-“ adjusting a weight value of at least a first rule in response to determining that the error value is above a predetermined threshold;” this is a mental process the human mind can adjust the weight value of a first rule response to the error value is above the predetermine threshold , (Observation/Evaluations).
-“ and processing a new data input, in response to determining that the error value is below the predetermined threshold.” This is a mental process, the human mind can process the new data input in response to the error value is below the predetermined threshold, (Observation/Evaluation).
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“a storage unit that stores a receiving a plurality of data records, each data record including a data input and an output” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
-“ a data input prediction system”, “a storage unit”, “a rule generation unit” The additional limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“a storage unit that stores a receiving a plurality of data records, each data record including a data input and an output” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself .
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
-“ a data input prediction system”, “a storage unit”, “a rule generation unit”, The additional limitations are recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 2 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“adjusts the weight value in response to determining that the first rule is associated with an adjustable weight” this is a mental process, the human mind can adjust the weight value in response that the determining the first rule is associated with the adjustable weight, (Observation/Evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis :
-“ the weight generating unit” The additional limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B analysis
-“ the weight generating unit” The additional limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 4 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ adjusting a weight value of a rule of the plurality of rules having an adjustable weight.” This is a mental process, the human can adjust the weight value of the rule with the adjustable rule, (observation/Evaluation).
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ the weight generating unit” this limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ the weight generating unit” this limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 6 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ processes a data record of the second portion of the received plurality of data records to generate a second output” this is a mental process, the human mind can processing the second portion of the received data record to generate the second output (observation/Evaluation).
-“ generates a difference value based on the first output and the second output;” This is a mental process, the human mind can generate the difference values based on two difference output values (observation/Evaluation).
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein the data record includes a first output” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
-“ the rule generation unit” this limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein the data record includes a first output” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
-“ the rule generation unit” this limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 7 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ applies each rule of the plurality of rules on the new data input to generate an output” this is a mental process, the human mind can apply each rule of the plurality of rules to the new data input to generate the new output
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ the rule generation unit” this limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B analysis:
-“ the rule generation unit” this limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 8 recites:
Step 2A: prong 1 analysis:
-“ determines that a rule of the plurality of rules is triggered in response to successfully applying the rule on the new data input” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine the rule of the plurality of rules is triggered in response to the successfully applying the rule on the new input data (observation/evaluation).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ the rule generation unit” this limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B analysis:
-“ the rule generation unit” this limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim 9 recites:
a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
-“ wherein a rule of the plurality of rules includes any one of: an association rule, an algebraic rule, a conditional rule, and any combination thereof” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
b) Step 2B analysis:
-“ wherein a rule of the plurality of rules includes any one of: an association rule, an algebraic rule, a conditional rule, and any combination thereof” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding claim 10 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 1, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Regarding claim 12 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 2, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Regarding claim 14 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 4, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Regarding claim 16 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 6, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Regarding claim 17 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 7, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Regarding claim 18 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 8, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Regarding claim 19 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 9, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as being anticipated by LESNIK et al. (Pub. No. US 20200202245-hereinafter, LESNIK) and further in view of Kwatra et al . (Pub. No. US 20230419338-hereinafter, Kwatra).
Regarding claim 1, LESNIK teaches a data input prediction system, comprising (LESNIK,443 [Par.0022], “FIG. 3 is a non-limiting exemplary schematic illustration of training a probabilistic data classifier (PDC) system 100, implemented in accordance with an embodiment. A PDC system 100 receives a plurality of training transactions 310-1 through 310-M.” ):
a storage unit that stores a plurality of data records, each data record including a data input and an output (Lesnik, 243 [Par.0016-0018], “[0016], The processing element 110 may be further coupled with a storage 140. Storage 140 may be used for the purpose of holding a copy of the method executed in accordance with the disclosed technique. The storage 140 may include a plurality of rules 150-1 through 150-N, for example, for classifying transactions in a transactional database. Classifying transactions may include generating a predicted outcome of the transaction. Each rule 150 includes a plurality of elements, such as one or more attribute elements 152, which may each correspond to a data field of a transaction, and one or more output elements 156” and “[0018], In S210 a plurality of transactions are received. A transaction may include a plurality of attribute elements, and one or more output elements. In an embodiment the transactions may be received from a transactional database.” Examiner’s note, storage stores the transaction data (data record) including the plurality of attribute elements (input) and the output element (output data)) ;
a rule generation unit that retrieves at least one of the plurality of data records and analyzes each one of the plurality of data records to determine at least one rule of a plurality of rules to implement to each one of the plurality of data records using at least one logic gateway a weight generating unit analyzes each applied rule (Lesnik, [Par.0016], “The processing element 110 may be coupled to a network interface controller (NIC) 130 for providing connectivity to other components, for example over a network. The processing element 110 may be further coupled with a storage 140. Storage 140 may be used for the purpose of holding a copy of the method executed in accordance with the disclosed technique. The storage 140 may include a plurality of rules 150-1 through 150-N, for example, for classifying transactions in a transactional database. Classifying transactions may include generating a predicted outcome of the transaction. Each rule 150 includes a plurality of elements, such as one or more attribute elements 152, which may each correspond to a data field of a transaction, and one or more output elements 156. A rule 150 further includes a condition (or relation) 154. A condition may be, for example, an “If-Then” condition, or any logical expression, including connectives such as or, xor, and, etc. In the exemplary embodiments discussed herein, each rule is further associated with a weight value 158. The weight values may be static, dynamic, or adaptive. A static weight is predetermined and remains constant. Dynamic values are forcefully changed. Adaptive weights are changed in response to a learning process, and example of which is discussed in more detail with respect to FIG. 2 and FIG. 4 below. In some embodiments, rules may have a single element, for example in indicating that a certain attribute is always “true” (or false, depending on the implemented logic). Applying a rule may yield an output, which in an embodiment is a value representing the probability that the rule is “true” (or “false”) for the rule. The processing element 110 and/or the memory 120 may also include machine-readable media for storing software. Software shall be construed broadly to mean any type of instructions, whether referred to as software, firmware, middleware, microcode, hardware description language, or otherwise. Instructions may include code (e.g., in source code format, binary code format, executable code format, or any other suitable format of code). The instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processing system to perform the various functions described in further detail herein.” ),
assigns a weight value to each rule (Lesnik, 243[Par.0015], “The system is trained from a training transaction set. In some embodiments, the system may mine the training transaction set for rules, while in other embodiments the rules may be predefined and assigned weights by the system.” ),
wherein, the rule generation unit applies each rule of the plurality of rules to each data input of the plurality of data records to generate a plurality of results (Lesnik, [Par.0022], “The PDC system generates a predicted output 330 for each training transaction it is provided with. In some embodiments, the PDC system may generate a predicted output for a portion of the training transactions. Such a portion may be predetermined, randomly selected, or selected in accordance with one or more rules. For example, only transactions where an attribute has a certain value would be used for generating a prediction, is one such rule for selecting a training transaction.” Examiner’s note, the system generates the prediction output of each training transaction by using the selected one rule) ;
each result corresponding to a rule of the plurality of rules (Lesnik, 243[Par.0018-0020], “n S210 a plurality of transactions are received. A transaction may include a plurality of attribute elements, and one or more output elements. In an embodiment the transactions may be received from a transactional database.[0019] In S220 a first frequency of a first attribute is determined, based on the number of times the first attribute appears in the plurality of transactions. For example, in a transactional database containing therein purchases from a retail store, the first attribute may be “jacket”. Other attributes may be “pants”, “sunglasses”, “hat”, and “belt”. The number of times “jacket” appears in the transactions is indicative of its frequency.[0020] In S230 a second frequency of a second element is determined, in response to the first frequency exceeding a first threshold. For example, if the attribute “jacket” exceeds a threshold of 10% (i.e. appears in more than 10% of transactions), then a frequency of at least another element is determined, with which “jacket” may be correlated. The second element may be another attribute, or in some embodiments, an output element. In certain embodiments there may be a plurality of second elements. An output element may be, for example, the “then” part of the “If-Then” clause. For example, a rule may be
if “jacket”.fwdarw.“belt” meaning that if a customer purchased a jacket, then they are likely to purchase a belt as well. In this example, the attribute “belt” is the output element.” And [Par.0022], “… Such a portion may be predetermined, randomly selected, or selected in accordance with one or more rules. For example, only transactions where an attribute has a certain value would be used for generating a prediction, is one such rule for selecting a training transaction.” Examiner’s note, the result is generated by using the IF-Then rule on the input data .)
generating for each data input a second output, based on the plurality of results corresponding to applying the plurality of rules on the data input (Lesnik, [Par.0019-0020], “ [0019] In S220 a first frequency of a first attribute is determined, based on the number of times the first attribute appears in the plurality of transactions. For example, in a transactional database containing therein purchases from a retail store, the first attribute may be “jacket”. Other attributes may be “pants”, “sunglasses”, “hat”, and “belt”. The number of times “jacket” appears in the transactions is indicative of its frequency. [0020] In S230 a second frequency of a second element is determined, in response to the first frequency exceeding a first threshold. For example, if the attribute “jacket” exceeds a threshold of 10% (i.e. appears in more than 10% of transactions), then a frequency of at least another element is determined, with which “jacket” may be correlated. The second element may be another attribute, or in some embodiments, an output element. In certain embodiments there may be a plurality of second elements. An output element may be, for example, the “then” part of the “If-Then” clause. For example, a rule may be if “jacket”.fwdarw.“belt” meaning that if a customer purchased a jacket, then they are likely to purchase a belt as well. In this example, the attribute “belt” is the output element.” Examiner’s note, the IF-Then rule is generated based on the input data to produce the output, for example, if the customer purchases the jacket then they are likely to purchase the belt, therefore, the belt (second output) is predicted based on the first input attributes (jacket));
generating an error value based on each output of the plurality of data records and each second output (Lesnik, [Par.0026], “In S430 an error value is generated based on a generated predicted outcome and a corresponding real outcome of the transaction. In some embodiments, a plurality of error values are generated” Examiner’s note, the predicted outcome is considered as the second output and the real outcome is considered as the output of the plurality of data records. ),
adjusting a weight value of at least a first rule in response to determining that the error value is above a predetermined threshold (Lesnik, [0027-0028], “In S440 a check is performed to determine if the error exceeds a first threshold. If ‘no’ execution continues at S460, otherwise execution continues at S450. [0028] In S450 a weight of at least one rule of the PDC is adjusted. In some embodiments, the error may be generated again to determine if the adjusted weight improved the error.”);
However, Lesnik does not teach and processing a new data input on the probabilistic rule engine, in response to determining that the error value is below the predetermined threshold
On the other hand, Kwatra teaches and processing a new data input on the probabilistic rule engine, in response to determining that the error value is below the predetermined threshold (Kwatra, [Par.0062, 0082], “[0062], In operation, the inputs to the PO management system 96 may include PO text/metadata, service usage/billing data, and historical PO renewal data... In a third phase, the customer may be engaged, and the resulting communications may be fed to a sentiment analysis model to determine a respective probability of renewal for each customer”
[Par.0080], “The training data set 615 may be fed into the ML model and used to generate prediction rules 620. These prediction rules may be compared to actual PO renewal results, e.g., by calculating F1 scores and confidence intervals 625. If the error is greater than a threshold, the weights in the ML model may be updated and new prediction rules may be generated. If the error is below a threshold, then a holdout data set 640 may be used to validate the prediction rules. The output of the ML model may be a contracts model 630, a regulatory document model 635, etc., depending on how the model is trained.” Examiner’s note, the PO management system is considered as the probability rule engine since the PO management system determine the probability of renewal for each customer. The holdout data is considered as the new input data, which is used to generate the prediction rule if the error below the threshold value.).
Lesnik and Kwatra are analogous in arts because they have the same filed of endeavor of generating the input data based on the rule.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adjusting a weight value of at least a first rule in response to determining that the error value is above a predetermined threshold, as taught by Lesnik, to include the processing a new data input on the probabilistic rule engine, in response to determining that the error value is below the predetermined threshold, as taught by Kwatra. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in art would be motivated to improve the customer service of the business, (Kwatra, [Par.0088], “Additionally, this embodiment performed linguistic analysis on the high priority POs to detect emotional and language tones in transcribed text. This was used to escalate customer conversations when they turned negative or when opportunities were found to improve customer service scripts, dialog strategies, and customer journeys.”).
Regarding claim 2, Lesnik teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the weight generating unit adjusts the weight value in response to determining that the first rule is associated with an adjustable weight (Lesnik, [Par.0022, 0025-0029], “[0022], the PDC system may adjust the weight of one or more rules. In some embodiments the PDC system 100 may further associate a price of misclassification.” And “[0025], Each rule includes an adjustable weight… In S450 a weight of at least one rule of the PDC is adjusted. In some embodiments, the error may be generated again to determine if the adjusted weight improved the error.[0029] In S460 a check is performed to determine if the process of training should be reiterated. A reiteration is running all, or a portion, of the training transaction set through the PDC system and determining if weights of rules should be adjusted.”, Examiner’s note, the system determine if the weights should be adjusted or the rule is associated with the adjustable weight.).
Regarding claim 4, Lesnik teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the weight generation unit adjusts a weight value of a rule of the plurality of rules having an adjustable weight. (Lesnik, “[0022], the PDC system may adjust the weight of one or more rules. In some embodiments the PDC system 100 may further associate a price of misclassification.” And “ [Par.0025-0029], “In S420 the PDC system generates a predicted outcome for each transaction of at least a subset of the plurality of training transactions. The prediction may be based on one or more rules of the PDC system. Each rule includes an adjustable weight...[0028], In S450 a weight of at least one rule of the PDC is adjusted. In some embodiments, the error may be generated again to determine if the adjusted weight improved the error.[0029] In S460 a check is performed to determine if the process of training should be reiterated. A reiteration is running all, or a portion, of the training transaction set through the PDC system and determining if weights of rules should be adjusted. If ‘yes’, execution continues at S420, otherwise execution terminates.).
Regarding claim 6, Lesnik teaches the system of claim 5, further comprising: the rule generation unit processes a data record of the second portion of the received plurality of data records to generate a second output (Lesnik, [Par.0030], “In some embodiments, a second subset of training transactions not used for training may be used for cross validation. The second subset of training transaction is provided to the PDC system 100, which generates predicted outcomes and error values based on the predicted outcomes and the corresponding real outcomes.” Examiner’s note, the second subset of the training transaction is generated to predicted outcome (second output). ),
wherein the data record includes a first output (Lesnik, 243 [Par.0018], “In S210 a plurality of transactions are received. A transaction may include a plurality of attribute elements, and one or more output elements. In an embodiment the transactions may be received from a transactional database.”) ;
the rule generation unit generates a difference value based on the first output and the second output (Lesnik, [Par.0039], “In S740 a rate of change in the objective function of rule for which the weight was adjusted is determined, between the first output, and the second predicted output.” Examiner’s note, the rate change in the objective function is considered as the difference value ).
Regarding claim 7, Lesnik teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the rule generation unit applies each rule of the plurality of rules on the new data input to generate an output (Lesnik, [claim 14], “receiving a new transaction; applying one or more rules of the plurality of rules to the transaction; and generating an outcome based on a portion of the rules of the one or more rules.”).
Regarding clam 9, Lesnik teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a rule of the plurality of rules includes any one of: an association rule, an algebraic rule, a conditional rule, and any combination thereof (Lesnik, [Par.0016], “Each rule 150 includes a plurality of elements, such as one or more attribute elements 152, which may each correspond to a data field of a transaction, and one or more output elements 156. A rule 150 further includes a condition (or relation) 154. A condition may be, for example, an “If-Then” condition, or any logical expression, including connectives such as or, xor, and, etc. In the exemplary embodiments discussed herein, each rule is further associated with a weight value 158. The weight values may be static, dynamic, or adaptive.”)..
Regarding claim 10 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 1, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Additionally, Lesnik further teaches a method of applying rules to a dataset by a rule generation unit including a processor and a memory, with a program in the memory executing the steps of (Lesnik, [Par.0016], “FIG. 1 is an exemplary and non-limiting schematic illustration of a probabilistic data classifier system 100 implemented according to an embodiment. The system 100 includes at least one processor 110 (or processing element), for example, a central processing unit (CPU). In an embodiment, the processing element 110 may be, or be a component of, a larger processing unit implemented with one or more processors. The one or more processors may be implemented with any combination of general-purpose microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), field programmable gate array (FPGAs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), controllers, state machines, gated logic, discrete hardware components, dedicated hardware finite state machines, or any other suitable entities that can perform calculations or other manipulations of information. The processing element 110 is coupled via a bus 105 to a memory 120. The memory 120 may include a memory portion that contains instructions that when executed by the processing element 110 performs the method described in more detail herein.”):
Regarding claim 12 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 2, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Regarding claim 14 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 4, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Regarding claim 16 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 6, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Regarding claim 17 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 7, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Regarding claim 19 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 9, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Claims 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as being anticipated by LESNIK et al. (Pub. No. US 20200202245-hereinafter, LESNIK) and further in view of Kwatra et al . (Pub. No. US 20230419338-hereinafter, Kwatra) and further in view of R et al. (Pub. No. US 20220229831 -hereinafter, R).
Regarding claim 8, Lesnik teaches the system of the claim 7 the rule generation unit (Lesnik, [Par.0022], “The PDC system generates a predicted output 330 for each training transaction it is provided with. In some embodiments, the PDC system may generate a predicted output for a portion of the training transactions. Such a portion may be predetermined, randomly selected, or selected in accordance with one or more rules. For example, only transactions where an attribute has a certain value would be used for generating a prediction, is one such rule for selecting a training transaction.”), but it does not teach the method of claim 7, further comprising: determining that a rule of the plurality of rules is triggered in response to successfully applying the rule on the new data input.
On the other hand, R teaches determine that a rule of the plurality of rules is triggered in response to successfully applying the rule on the new data input, (R, [Par.0087], “In 514, validation API 104 (or second validation API 152) validates the second data object using validation service 107. Validation API 104 (or second validation API 152) can transmit the second data object to validation service 107. Validation service 107 can validate the second data object based on predefined rules specific to server-side technology implemented by server 102. The predefined set of rules may be associated with the second set of elements. Validation service 107 may generate a response indicating the second validation result. The second validation result may indicate whether the second data object was successfully or unsuccessfully validated. The response may also include an error message if validation service 107 failed to validate the second data object.”).
Lesnik, Kwatra and R are analogous in arts because they have the same filed of endeavor of generating the input data based on the rule.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the probabilistic rule engine, as taught by Lesnik, to include the determining that a rule of the plurality of rules is triggered in response to successfully applying the rule on the new data input, as taught by R. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in art would be motivated to modify the unauthorized data, or data loss, (R, [Par.0012, 0014], “[0012], As described above, databases can be vulnerable to various attacks, such as SQL injections. The SQL injections can be used to provide unauthorized access to data using queries. The attacks can include information disclosure, unavailability, access to unauthorized data, modification of unauthorized data, or data loss. Therefore, there is a need to validate the queries at the client device, server, and database level. Without validation of the queries, the database can be left susceptible to various attacks. For example, improper or nonexistent validation of queries can result in the following types of attacks, [0014], The method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium embodiments described herein solve these problems by validating input requests at the client device, server, and database level.” ).
Regarding claim 18 is rejected for the same reason of the claim 8, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is provide below.
Tandon et al. (Pub. No.: US20070106785-hereinafter, Tandon) teaches the system adjusts a weight of the rule based on correction of the prediction.
Choi et al. (Pub. No.: US 20070282770-hereinafter, Choi) teaches the rule is associated with the weight values.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EM N TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-5747. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached on (571) 272-2589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights