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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-12, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step "extracting a subset from a dataset to be analyzed under a designated condition" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about taking out a portion of data using a rule. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
Step "evaluating domain generalization of the extracted subset" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user observing, evaluating, or judging about whether the selected data would still meet condition [Wingdings font/0xF3] domain generalization. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
Step "searching for a subset having a higher domain generalization by repeating an operation of adding or deleting a sample on the subset, from a subset serving as a starting point" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user starting from the portion of data, mentally adding or removing one item, mentally re-judging the portion of data, and repeating. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
"Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. "For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Here, the mentioned steps fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations:
"one or more processors" → generic processor.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) — Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
The recited "one or more processors" does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. The claim does not recite any specific technical detail that would make the computer faster, more accurate, or more efficient. The recited “processor” implements abstract steps on a generic computer, leaving other technology unchanged. The computer itself does not run faster, use less memory, fewer cycles, or operate more efficiently.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) — Particular Machine.
The claim is silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as "one or more processors" is a generic label, not a particular machine. The judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
c) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The recited "one or more processors" does not transform any article into a different state or thing. The claim recites mere data manipulation. Picking items from a pile, evaluate the picked items, and adjusting the picked items. The steps are not a "transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]" See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
d) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e). The recited "one or more processors" does not impose any meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
e) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The claim does not recite any limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity separate from the abstract idea itself.
6) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “processor” is simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitation “processor” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation "one or more processors" → generic processor does not recite any non-generic arrangement for performing the mental steps. Taking this limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing beyond what it does alone in implementing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites "extracting a learning subset from a dataset of one or more learning domains... and training a learning model by using the learning subset, extracting an evaluation subset from a dataset of one or more evaluation domains different from the learning domain... and evaluating the learning model by using the evaluation subset, and evaluating the domain generalization of the extracted subset by using an evaluation result of the learning model." The claim merely recites a functional result, such as applying a trained model across different domains to evaluate generalization, rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites "extracting a learning subset... and training a learning model... extracting a first evaluation subset different from the learning subset from the dataset of the learning domain... and evaluating the learning model... extracting a second evaluation subset from a dataset of one or more evaluation domains different from the learning domain... and evaluating the learning model... and evaluating the domain generalization of the extracted subset by using a difference between an evaluation result of the first evaluation subset and an evaluation result of the second evaluation subset." The claim merely recites a functional result, such as evaluating generalization by comparing two evaluation results, rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites "evaluating a degree of association between a feature amount of a subset and a response variable for each of the domains, and assuming that the more the degree of association is relatively high in many domains, the more a domain generality of the feature amount is relatively high, and evaluating that the subset having a larger number of the feature amounts with the relatively high domain generality has a relatively high domain generalization." The claim merely recites a functional result, such as evaluating generalization rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites "evaluating a degree of association between a feature amount of a subset and a response variable for each of the domains, and setting a feature amount having a degree of association equal to or greater than a threshold value in a certain number or more of domains as a feature amount having relatively high domain generality, and evaluating the domain generalization of the subset by using the number of the feature amounts having the relatively high domain generality." The claim merely recites a functional result, such as evaluating generalization by counting features that having the relatively high domain generality, rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites "extracting a learning subset... and extracting a feature amount set from the learning subset, extracting an evaluation subset from a dataset of one or more evaluation domains different from the learning domain... and evaluating the extracted feature amount set by using the evaluation subset, and evaluating the domain generalization of the learning subset by using a proportion of a feature amount that is effective in the evaluation subset among feature amounts of the extracted feature amount set." The claim merely recites a functional result, such as evaluating generalization rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites "evaluating a degree of association between a feature amount of the learning subset and a response variable for each of the domains; and assuming that the more the degree of association is relatively high in many domains, the more a domain generality of the feature amount is relatively high, wherein the extracted feature amount set includes the feature amount having the relatively high domain generality." The claim merely recites a functional result, such as evaluating a degree of association rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites "evaluating a degree of association between a feature amount of the learning subset and a response variable for each of the domains; and setting a feature amount having a degree of association equal to or greater than a threshold value in a certain number or more of domains as a feature amount having relatively high domain generality, wherein the extracted feature amount set includes the feature amount having the relatively high domain generality." The claim merely recites a functional result rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites "evaluating usefulness of the extracted subset from known usefulness information for each sample in the dataset and a sample included in the subset, and evaluating a subset by combining the usefulness of the extracted subset and the domain generalization of the extracted subset." The claim merely recites a functional result, such as evaluating usefulness with generalization, rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites "evaluating domain uniformity indicating a closeness in distribution between a number of data items in the dataset and a number of data items in the extracted subset for each of the domains, and evaluating the extracted subset by combining the domain uniformity and the domain generalization of the extracted subset." The claim merely recites a functional result, such as evaluate domain uniformity, rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites "training a subset classification model that classifies whether or not data of the dataset is a subset." The limitation does not provide any details to improve the computer itself or any technological field. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites "evaluating a subset classification performance of the subset classification model, and evaluating the subset by combining the subset classification performance and the domain generalization." The claim merely recites a functional result, such as evaluating a subset by combining classification performance with generalization, rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites "searching for the subset by further evaluating any one of usefulness of a subset evaluated from known usefulness information for each sample in the dataset and a sample included in the subset, domain uniformity indicating a closeness in distribution between a number of data items in the dataset and a number of data items in the subset for each of the domains, and a subset classification performance of a subset classification model that classifies whether or not data of the dataset is a subset." The claim merely recites a functional result, such as searching for a subset by adding one of three judgment factors to the search, rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step "extracting a subset from a dataset to be analyzed under a designated condition" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about taking out a portion of data using a rule. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
Step "evaluating domain generalization of the extracted subset" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user observing, evaluating, or judging about whether the selected data would still meet condition [Wingdings font/0xF3] domain generalization. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).`
Step "evaluating subsets extracted under each of the plurality of different subset conditions" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user mentally evaluating portions of data under different criteria. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
Step "extracting a subset under a subset condition having a best evaluation result among the plurality of different subset conditions" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user evaluating and selecting a subset having best evaluation result. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
"Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. "For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Here, the mentioned steps fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations: "one or more processors" → generic processor; "presenting a plurality of different subset conditions" → pre-solution display of options.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) — Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
The recited "one or more processors" and "presenting a plurality of different subset conditions" do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. The claim does not recite any specific technical detail that would make the computer faster, more accurate, or more efficient. The processor carries out abstract steps on a generic computer, leaving other technology unchanged. The computer itself does not run faster, use less memory, fewer cycles, or operate more efficiently.
b) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. The judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
The claim is silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as “processor” . Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
c) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The recited "one or more processors" is a generic label, not a particular machine, "presenting a plurality of different subset conditions" → pre-solution display of options. The steps are not a "transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]" See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
d) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The limitations "one or more processors" → generic processor; "presenting a plurality of different subset conditions" → pre-solution display of options is not meaningful limitation because it is a pre-solution activity. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
e) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The recited "presenting a plurality of different subset conditions" is pre-solution activity. It only sets up the options the abstract steps will then evaluate.
6) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “computer processor” is simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations "one or more processors" → generic processor and "presenting a plurality of different subset conditions" → pre-solution display of options do not recite any non-generic arrangement for performing the mental steps. Taking these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing beyond what each does alone in implementing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 and 17 are similar to claim 1. The claim is rejected based on the same reasons.
Claim 18 is similar to claim 15. The claim is rejected based on the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Section Rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 – pg. 10-11
Applicant’s argument has been considered. Please see the rejection section above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights