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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on July 17, 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 17, 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 to claims 1-18 and 41-42 are made as necessitated by the filed claim amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 to claims 1-18 and 41-42 utilizing newly cited art Baseman et al. (US 20180292811 A1 (Published 2018); hereinafter Baseman) are made as necessitated by the filed claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections to claims 1-18 and 41-42 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-18 and 41-42 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections to claims 1-18 and 41-42 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Additionally, the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 to claims 1-18 and 41-42 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter included in the filed amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-18 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
based on the multiple samples, providing, …, a first causal structure and a second causal structure that represent causality between the multiple ordinal data, the second causal structure being obtained based on the first causal structure
controlling processing of the mechanical product using the second causal structure
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
based on the multiple samples (observation of samples), providing, …, a first causal structure and a second causal structure that represent causality between the multiple ordinal data, the second causal structure being obtained based on the first causal structure (corresponds to evaluation and judgment based on observed ordinal data that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper; given a sufficiently small dataset for the samples and ordinal data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper);
controlling processing of the mechanical product using the second causal structure (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional elements of “from sensors in an application system for processing the mechanical product”, “by at least one processing unit”, and “by a display”, as drafted, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Moreover, the claim recites additional elements that amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of “obtaining, …, multiple samples associated with multiple ordinal data in an application system, wherein the multiple ordinal data comprise quality levels collected in various processing stages of processing the mechanical product, wherein each sample among the multiple samples comprises multiple dimensions, wherein a dimension among the multiple dimensions corresponds to ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data, and wherein the multiple dimensions and the multiple ordinal data have a one-to-one correspondence” and “presenting, …, the second causal structure in a directed acyclic graph” amount to mere data gathering and/or data outputting, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, the claim recites the additional elements of “obtaining, …, multiple samples associated with multiple ordinal data in an application system, wherein the multiple ordinal data comprise quality levels collected in various processing stages of processing the mechanical product, wherein each sample among the multiple samples comprises multiple dimensions, wherein a dimension among the multiple dimensions corresponds to ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data, and wherein the multiple dimensions and the multiple ordinal data have a one-to-one correspondence” and “presenting, …, the second causal structure in a directed acyclic graph” which amount to an insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Similarly, this has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity…i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”; Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, the recitations of “obtaining, …, multiple samples associated with multiple ordinal data in an application system, wherein the multiple ordinal data comprise quality levels collected in various processing stages of processing the mechanical product, wherein each sample among the multiple samples comprises multiple dimensions, wherein a dimension among the multiple dimensions corresponds to ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data, and wherein the multiple dimensions and the multiple ordinal data have a one-to-one correspondence” and “presenting, …, the second causal structure in a directed acyclic graph” (i.e., forwarding and outputting information) are the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
the first causal structure comprises an initial causal structure of the causality, the second causal structure comprising an adjacent causal structure of the causality, the adjacent causal structure being obtained in adjacent scope of the initial causal structure
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
the first causal structure comprises an initial causal structure of the causality, the second causal structure comprising an adjacent causal structure of the causality, the adjacent causal structure being obtained in adjacent scope of the initial causal structure (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
providing the first causal structure and the second causal structure further comprises: providing the adjacent causal structure based on the multiple samples and the expert knowledge
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
providing the first causal structure and the second causal structure further comprises: providing the adjacent causal structure based on the multiple samples and the expert knowledge (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional element of “receiving expert knowledge representing a constraint in the causality” amounts to mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element of “receiving expert knowledge representing a constraint in the causality” amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Similarly, this has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity…i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”; Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
providing the adjacent causal structure based on the multiple samples and the expert knowledge further comprises: determining the initial causal structure of the causality based on the expert knowledge
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
providing the adjacent causal structure based on the multiple samples and the expert knowledge further comprises: determining the initial causal structure of the causality based on the expert knowledge (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 3.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
generating an objective function for obtaining the causality based on the multiple samples
searching for the adjacent causal structure in adjacent scope of the initial causal structure based on the objective function, the adjacent causal structure causing the objective function to meet a predetermined condition
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
generating an objective function for obtaining the causality based on the multiple samples (corresponds to evaluation and judgment); searching for the adjacent causal structure in adjacent scope of the initial causal structure based on the objective function, the adjacent causal structure causing the objective function to meet a predetermined condition (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 2.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
determining an association associated with the multiple samples
generating the objective function based on the association
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
determining an association associated with the multiple samples (corresponds to evaluation and judgment); generating the objective function based on the association (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
determining a set of threshold estimations associated with ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data based on the multiple samples
determining the association based on the set of threshold estimations and the multiple samples
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
determining a set of threshold estimations associated with ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data based on the multiple samples (corresponds to evaluation and judgment); determining the association based on the set of threshold estimations and the multiple samples (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 6.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
generating the objective function based on the association and the number of effective causalities among the causality
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
generating the objective function based on the association and the number of effective causalities among the causality (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 6.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
generating the objective function based on the association further comprises: generating the objective function based on the association and the effective sample size
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
generating the objective function based on the association further comprises: generating the objective function based on the association and the effective sample size (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional element of “receiving an effective sample size associated with the causality” amounts to mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element of “receiving an effective sample size associated with the causality” amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Similarly, this has been re-evaluated under step 2B and do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity…i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”; Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
searching for the adjacent causal structure comprises: in the adjacent scope of the initial causal structure, adding an edge into the initial causal structure to form the adjacent causal structure
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
searching for the adjacent causal structure comprises: in the adjacent scope of the initial causal structure, adding an edge into the initial causal structure to form the adjacent causal structure (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
the predetermined condition comprises that the adjacent causal structure maximizes the objective function
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
the predetermined condition comprises that the adjacent causal structure maximizes the objective function (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional element of “receiving expert knowledge representing a constraint in the causality, wherein the adjacent causal structure meets the expert knowledge” amounts to mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element of “receiving expert knowledge representing a constraint in the causality, wherein the adjacent causal structure meets the expert knowledge” amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Similarly, this has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity…i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”; Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 3.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional element of “regarding first ordinal data and second ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data, the expert knowledge comprises one of: the first ordinal data and the second ordinal data have direct causality” amounts to mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element of “regarding first ordinal data and second ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data, the expert knowledge comprises one of: the first ordinal data and the second ordinal data have direct causality” amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Similarly, this has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity…i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”; Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
verifying the adjacent causal structure based on the expert knowledge
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
verifying the adjacent causal structure based on the expert knowledge (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 13.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 13.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
providing the adjacent causal structure based on the multiple samples comprises: searching for a further adjacent causal structure of the adjacent causal structure in adjacent scope of the adjacent causal structure
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
providing the adjacent causal structure based on the multiple samples comprises: searching for a further adjacent causal structure of the adjacent causal structure in adjacent scope of the adjacent causal structure (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
searching for the further adjacent causal structure comprises: searching for the further adjacent causal structure that meets expert knowledge of a constraint in the causality in the adjacent scope of the adjacent causal structure
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
searching for the further adjacent causal structure comprises: searching for the further adjacent causal structure that meets expert knowledge of a constraint in the causality in the adjacent scope of the adjacent causal structure (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 15.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 15.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
presenting the second causal structure in a directed acyclic graph, a node in the directed acyclic graph representing ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data, and an edge in the second causal structure representing causality between two ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data
presenting the second causal structure in a matrix, multiple dimensions of the matrix representing the multiple ordinal data respectively, and an element of the matrix representing a weight of causality between two ordinal data corresponding to the element among the multiple ordinal data
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
presenting the second causal structure in a directed acyclic graph, a node in the directed acyclic graph representing ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data, and an edge in the second causal structure representing causality between two ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with pen and paper);
presenting the second causal structure in a matrix, multiple dimensions of the matrix representing the multiple ordinal data respectively, and an element of the matrix representing a weight of causality between two ordinal data corresponding to the element among the multiple ordinal data (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “eliminating failures in the application system based on the causality”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Moreover, the claim recites additional element(s) that amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional element of “the multiple ordinal data represents multiple attributes of the application system, and obtaining the multiple samples comprises: regarding a given sample among the multiple samples, receiving data of multiple dimensions included in the given sample from one or more sensors deployed in the application system respectively”, as drafted, amounts to mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, the additional element of “the multiple ordinal data represents multiple attributes of the application system, and obtaining the multiple samples comprises: regarding a given sample among the multiple samples, receiving data of multiple dimensions included in the given sample from one or more sensors deployed in the application system respectively” amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Similarly, this has been re-evaluated under step 2B and do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity…i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”; Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 41,
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 41 is directed to a device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
based on the multiple samples, providing, …, a first causal structure and a second causal structure that represent causality between the multiple ordinal data, the second causal structure being obtained based on the first causal structure
controlling processing of the mechanical product using the second causal structure
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
based on the multiple samples (observation of samples), providing, …, a first causal structure and a second causal structure that represent causality between the multiple ordinal data, the second causal structure being obtained based on the first causal structure (corresponds to evaluation and judgment based on observed ordinal data that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper; given a sufficiently small dataset for the samples and ordinal data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper);
controlling processing of the mechanical product using the second causal structure (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional elements of “at least one processing unit”, “at least one memory, coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions to be executed by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, causing the device to perform a method”, “from sensors in an application system”, “by the at least one processing unit”, and “by a display”, as drafted, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Moreover, the claim recites additional element(s) that amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of “obtaining, …, multiple samples associated with multiple ordinal data in an application system, wherein the multiple ordinal data comprise quality levels collected in various processing stages of processing the mechanical product, wherein each sample among the multiple samples comprises multiple dimensions, wherein a dimension among the multiple dimensions corresponds to ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data, and wherein the multiple dimensions and the multiple ordinal data have a one-to-one correspondence” and “presenting, …, the second causal structure in a directed acyclic graph”, as drafted, amount to mere data gathering and/or data outputting, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, the additional elements of “obtaining, …, multiple samples associated with multiple ordinal data in an application system, wherein the multiple ordinal data comprise quality levels collected in various processing stages of processing the mechanical product, wherein each sample among the multiple samples comprises multiple dimensions, wherein a dimension among the multiple dimensions corresponds to ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data, and wherein the multiple dimensions and the multiple ordinal data have a one-to-one correspondence” and “presenting, …, the second causal structure in a directed acyclic graph” amount to insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Similarly, this has been re-evaluated under step 2B and do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity…i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”; Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, the recitations of “obtaining, …, multiple samples associated with multiple ordinal data in an application system, wherein the multiple ordinal data comprise quality levels collected in various processing stages of processing the mechanical product, wherein each sample among the multiple samples comprises multiple dimensions, wherein a dimension among the multiple dimensions corresponds to ordinal data among the multiple ordinal data, and wherein the multiple dimensions and the multiple ordinal data have a one-to-one correspondence” and “presenting, …, the second causal structure in a directed acyclic graph” (i.e., forwarding and outputting information) are the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 42,
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 42 is directed to a medium, which is directed to a manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
based on the multiple samples, providing a first causal structure and a second causal structure that represent causality between the multiple ordinal data, the second causal structure being obtained based on the first causal structure
controlling processing of the mechanical product using the second causal structure
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
based on the multiple samples (observation of samples), providing a first causal structure and a second causal structure that represent causality between the multiple ordinal data, the second causal structure being obtained based on the first causal structure (corresponds to evaluation and judgment based on observed ordinal data that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper; Given a sufficiently small dataset for the samples and ordinal data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper);
controlling processing of the mechanical product using the second causal structure (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, with computer-readable program instructions stored thereon, the computer-readable program instructions, if executed, causes performances of a method”, “from sensors in an application system”, and “by a d