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 .
Status of the Application
This communication is the first action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) have been filed on behalf of this case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed toward at least one judicial exception without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below:
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a method, claim 15 is directed towards a system, claim 20 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim is nonetheless, directed towards an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth this abstract idea recite: segmenting the population into at least a first subpopulation and a second subpopulation, the segmenting such that all members of the first subpopulation are part of a first class of the two or more classes, and all members of the second subpopulation are part of a second class of the two or more classes; selecting, from the first subpopulation and using, a first number of candidates from the first subpopulation, the first number of candidates selected according to the target trait characteristic, using a first training population in which all members of the first training population are part of the first class of the two or more classes; and selecting, from the second subpopulation and using, a second number of candidates from the second subpopulation, the second number of candidates selected according to the target trait characteristic, using a second training population in which all members of the second training population are part of the second class of the two or more classes. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, because they encompass steps that are practically performed in the human mind by observation, judgment and evaluation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and merely applying the abstract idea by computer. In particular the claim recites the additional element of: receiving data characterizing a population and a target trait characteristic for selecting candidates from the population, the population including members and each member of the population including a respective trait classifiable into one of two or more classes. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity because such activity is necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the limitation referring to a first model, the first model trained; a second model, the second model trained, is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). 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. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity and implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and applying the abstract idea on a computer. Viewing these limitations individually, the receiving, data characterizing a population and a target trait characteristic for selecting candidates from the population, the population including members and each member of the population including a respective trait classifiable into one of two or more classes is used only for necessary data gathering. The courts have recognized automating mental tasks and receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II; Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 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). Moreover, the limitations generically referring to a first model, a second model, a processor and memory (claim 15), also, do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the identified additional elements used to perform the various steps amounts to no more than merely applying the exception using generic computer, and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Likewise, dependent claims 2-14 do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above as they do not add any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. While they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 15-20 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claim 1-14 and are also rejected accordingly.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record are references found closest to applicant's claimed limitations
a) Riggs; et al. (US 20190370308 A1) teaches selecting one of segmented groups of elements, ordered by their functional roles, or representations of those elements, which share a first common or proximate functional attribute; segmenting the selected group of elements, or representations of those elements, into two or more subgroups, wherein the subgroups are subsets of the segmented groups; wherein the groups of elements, or representations of those elements, in a first subgroup share a third common or proximate functional attribute and the elements, or representations of those elements, in a second subgroup share a fourth common or proximate functional attribute. Providing stratification controls that can: ensure an unbiased sample set that is representative of the entire population; or, ensure a specific exposure to increase the likelihood of an outcome that is desired but not necessarily representative of the underlying population.
b) Rind; et al. (US 12061720 B2) teaches classifying attributes of users into two classes and applying an unsupervised learning model to user attributes to cluster users, for example, a machine learning model may be trained by the trust-score calculator and downloaded to the native-client applications for classification on-device, to prevent the need to send responses to the server system.
c) Irimie; et al. (US 10673895 B2) teaches a model trained by applying machine learning to the attributes of a plurality of users, a first template from a plurality of templates for a first group of users of one or more groups of users and a second template from the plurality of templates for the second group of users of the one or more groups of user.
d) Elgressy; et al. (US 11636213 B1) teaches characterizing users by being placed or segmented into one or more specific groups or classifications, and using a machine learning model that operates to receive as an input a new person's characterizing data.
e) Liew; et al. (US 20070269804 A1) teaches training a population comprises a first trait subgroup and a second trait subgroup; selecting a plurality of candidate molecular markers from among a plurality of molecular markers based on a determination of the ability of the first molecular marker data to discriminate between members of the first trait subgroup and members of the second trait subgroup.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571) 272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 611)).