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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 12/17th/2025 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS page 9-18 filed 12/17th/2025, regarding the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-16, and 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument #1:
Step 2A: The Pending Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
Examiner Response #1:
Prong One:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Collecting user interaction data … in real-time or near-real-time, or identifying a selected number of confounders ... in real-time or near-real-time ... wherein the computation for identifying the selected number of cofounders scales linearly with respect to the selected number of confounders, or computing effects of a plurality of treatments ... in batch mode or in parallel while using an amount of memory resources less than a threshold by using the feature table are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, allocating memory for a feature table is a mental process such as an operator allocating a certain amount of memory to a feature table. Furthermore, customizing respective user experiences of users in the different subgroups based on the computed effects is mere instruction to apply a judicial exception. In view of the considerations found in MPEP 2106.05(f), this limitation is only describing the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting how the solution is accomplished. There are no specific steps that provide details about how the user experience is customized. Also, the third consideration analyzes the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. In this case, the application of the judicial exception (customizing a user experience) is very broad without details of what “customizing a user experience” means or any details of how it is accomplished. Furthermore, the recitation of providing respective customized user interfaces to users in the different subgroups based on the computed effects of the plurality of treatments is an insignificant extra solution activity of data outputting. Furthermore, in regards to example 1 of the 1-36 examples, the claimed invention is about providing treatments while example 1 is about identifying and isolating anomalies which makes them different inventions. Different inventions are examined on their own merit and the analysis of one invention does not apply to a different invention, and the same applies to any federal circuit court ruling when compared to a different invention that is directed to a different technology.
Prong Two:
While the disclosure [0044-0046] recites improvements such as “performing real-time, dynamically adjustable analysis”, “saving in computation resources in terms of the
number of processors/cores required”, and “allowing for the identification of conversion drivers”, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of dynamically adjusting pre-treatment observation periods, allocating memory for a feature table, identifying a selected number of confounders from the feature table, or computing an effect of a treatment on an outcome, rather than to an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Furthermore, in regards to example 40, the claimed invention is about providing treatments while example 40 is about identifying and collecting data about network delays and packet losses which makes them different inventions. Different inventions are examined on their own merit and the analysis of one invention does not apply to a different invention, and the same applies to any federal circuit court ruling when compared to a different invention that is directed to a different technology.
Applicant Argument #2:
Step 2B: The Claims Amount to Significantly More Than Any Judicial Exception
Examiner Response #2:
The examiner respectfully disagree. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the additional limitations do not integrate the claim into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
101 Rejection
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 1-4, 6-12, 14-16, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter
Step 1 Analysis for all claims:
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 19 are directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Claims 9-12, 14-16, and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is directed to a product, one of the statutory categories. Claims 21-24 are directed to a system, which is directed to an apparatus, one of the statutory categories.
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis:
Claim 1 recites in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim recites in part:
wherein pre-treatment observation periods within the specified observation window are dynamically adjusted in real-time or near-real-time for each user as a corresponding fraction of the specified observation window, allowing collection of additional user interaction data usable to improve accuracy of inferred causal relationships Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator adjusting a timing window within the observation window. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of in real-time or near-real-time for each user as a corresponding fraction of the specified observation window, allowing collection of additional user interaction data usable to improve accuracy of inferred causal relationships is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h).
allocating memory for a feature table, wherein a size of the allocated memory is linearly proportional to a product of a number of users in the plurality of users and a number of features in the collected user interaction data Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator allocating memory based on the number of variables in the data collected. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of linearly proportional to a product of a number of users in the plurality of users and a number of features in the collected user interaction data is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h).
identifying a selected number of confounders from the feature table in real-time or near real-time, wherein identifying the selected number of confounders comprises: computing first mutual information between each feature from the feature table and a corresponding outcome from the feature table under a condition that a treatment has occurred; selecting a first confounder that corresponds to a feature that maximizes the first mutual information; and iteratively computing updated mutual information between each feature from the feature table and a corresponding outcome from the feature table under a condition that a respective treatment and a previously selected set of confounders have occurred, wherein at each iteration a next confounder is added to the selected number of confounders Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator identifying what might be a link between a cause and effect in the table. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of under a condition that a respective treatment and a previously selected set of confounders have occurred is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h).
computing effects of a plurality of treatment on outcomes using the selected number of confounders in batch mode or in parallel Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of in batch mode or in parallel is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
A computer-implemented method for inferring causal relationships is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
collecting user interaction data with one or more user interfaces for a plurality of users, within a specified observation window, the collected user interaction data comprising a treatment observation for at least one user and an outcome observation for at least one user amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
wherein the treatment observation and the outcome observation are with reference to the one or more user interfaces is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h).
storing in the feature table feature-related values based on the user interaction data collected during respective pre-treatment observation periods for each of the plurality of users which amounts to extra-solution activity of data storage. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the next confounder corresponds to a feature that maximizes the updated mutual information, wherein a number of iterations is one less than the selected number of confounders, wherein the computation for identifying the selected number of confounders scales linearly with respect to the selected number of confounders is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h).
while using an amount of memory resources less than a threshold by using the feature table to determine how different subgroups of users are affected differently by the plurality of treatments is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h).
customizing respective user experiences of users in the different subgroups based on the computed effects of the plurality of treatments on the users in the subgroups wherein customizing the respective user experiences includes providing respective customized user interfaces to users in the different subgroups based on the computed effects of the plurality of treatments which is mere instruction to apply a judicial exception. In view of the considerations found in MPEP 2106.05(f), this limitation is only describing the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting how the solution is accomplished. There are no specific steps that provide details about how the user experience is customized. Also, the third consideration analyzes the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. In this case, the application of the judicial exception (customizing a user experience) is very broad without details of what “customizing a user experience” means or any details of how it is accomplished. Furthermore, the recitation of providing respective customized user interfaces to users in the different subgroups based on the computed effects of the plurality of treatments is an insignificant extra solution activity of data outputting.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, it has been determined that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis:
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
A computer-implemented method for inferring causal relationships is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
collecting user interaction data with one or more user interfaces for a plurality of users, within a specified observation window, the collected user interaction data comprising a treatment observation for at least one user and an outcome observation for at least one user the additional elements of collecting data is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. 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").
wherein the treatment observation and the outcome observation are with reference to the one or more user interfaces is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
storing in the feature table feature-related values based on the user interaction data collected during respective pre-treatment observation periods for each of the plurality of users which amounts to extra-solution activity of data storage. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of storing data. The courts have found limitations directed to storing information, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
wherein the next confounder corresponds to a feature that maximizes the updated mutual information, wherein a number of iterations is one less than the selected number of confounders, wherein the computation for identifying the selected number of confounders scales linearly with respect to the selected number of confounders is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
while using an amount of memory resources less than a threshold by using the feature table to determine how different subgroups of users are affected differently by the plurality of treatments is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
customizing respective user experiences of users in the different subgroups based on the computed effects of the plurality of treatments on the users in the subgroups wherein customizing the respective user experiences includes providing respective customized user interfaces to users in the different subgroups based on the computed effects of the plurality of treatments which is mere instruction to apply a judicial exception. In view of the considerations found in MPEP 2106.05(f), this limitation is only describing the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting how the solution is accomplished. There are no specific steps that provide details about how the user experience is customized. Also, the third consideration analyzes the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. In this case, the application of the judicial exception (customizing a user experience) is very broad without details of what “customizing a user experience” means or any details of how it is accomplished. Furthermore, the recitation of providing respective customized user interfaces to users in the different subgroups based on the computed effects of the plurality of treatments is an insignificant extra solution activity of data outputting.
For the reasons above, claim 1 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The additional limitations of the dependent claims contain no additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are addressed briefly below
Dependent claim 2 recites:
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
wherein the collected user interaction data comprises one or more events indicative of user action with reference to the one or more user interfaces or one or more properties of user devices used to access the one or more user interfaces is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the collected user interaction data comprises one or more events indicative of user action with reference to the one or more user interfaces or one or more properties of user devices used to access the one or more user interfaces is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claim 3 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis:
wherein storing the feature-related values in the feature table comprises: partitioning the plurality of users into four cohort groups based on the corresponding treatment observations and the corresponding outcome observations Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
generating respective feature tables for each cohort group Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
concatenating the respective feature tables Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Steps 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The clam does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 recites:
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
wherein the pre-treatment observation period for a first user is different from the pre-treatment observation period for a second user is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the pre-treatment observation period for a first user is different from the pre-treatment observation period for a second user is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claim 6 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis:
wherein computing the effects of the plurality of treatments on the outcome comprises: grouping the plurality of users into one or more groups Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
wherein all users in a particular group have identical values for the selected confounders is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein all users in a particular group have identical values for the selected confounders is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claim 7 recites:
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
wherein the treatment comprises a stimulus provided to one or more of the plurality of users or a particular action taken by one or more of the plurality of users is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the treatment comprises a stimulus provided to one or more of the plurality of users or a particular action taken by one or more of the plurality of users is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claim 8 recites:
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
wherein the collected user interaction data corresponds to user interaction with the one or more user interfaces that are part of a webpage or a mobile app is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the collected user interaction data corresponds to user interaction with the one or more user interfaces that are part of a webpage or a mobile app is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))
Claim 9: is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Claim 10: is substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 2.
Claim 11: is substantially similar to claim 3 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 3.
Claim 12: is substantially similar to claim 4 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 4.
Claim 14: is substantially similar to claim 6 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 6.
Claim 15: is substantially similar to claim 7 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 7.
Claim 16: is substantially similar to claim 8 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 8.
Dependent claim 19 recites:
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
wherein the feature table is implemented as an array, a matrix, a multi-dimensional tensor, or a hash table is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the feature table is implemented as an array, a matrix, a multi-dimensional tensor, or a hash table is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))
Claim 20: is substantially similar to claim 19 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 19.
Claim 21: is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Claim 22: is substantially similar to claim 19 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 19.
Claim 23: is substantially similar to claim 4 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 4.
Claim 24: is substantially similar to claim 8 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
HUANG (US 2022/0093271 Al)
“HUANG teaches a method for performing causal inference analyses to determine the more effective treatment among alternative treatments in the healthcare setting using real world observational data”
SANDULEANU (US 2021/0217525 Al)
“SANDULEANU teaches a method for determining a hypoxia status of a neoplasm”
Raleigh (US 2012/0316425 Al)
“Raleigh teaches for timing of a plurality of imaging observation elements based on a volume of interest (VOI)”
Achin (US 2018/0046926 Al)
“Achin teaches a predictive modeling method may include determining a time interval of time-series data; identifying one or more variables of the data as targets; determining a forecast range and a skip range associated with a prediction problem represented by the data; generating training data and testing data from the time-series data; fitting a predictive model to the training data; and testing the fitted model on the testing data”
Arora (US 2019 / 0260742 A1)
“Arora teaches a method for intelligently deciding the optimal authenticator(s) from amongst those supported by an electronic device”
Elewitz (US 2021/0110294 A1)
“Elewitz teaches a method for the identification of key features among features input to a complex predictive model”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMCY ALGHAZZY whose telephone number is (571)272-8824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:30pm EST.
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 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.
/SHAMCY ALGHAZZY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128