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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to any of the judicial exceptions. Examiner disagrees with this assessment because “determining a total of observations based on the numbers of observations with respect to the respective categorical classes” is a mental process, and “estimating an upper bound of an average value of the data” is a mathematical concept.
Applicant argues the amended claims are directed to an improvement to technology and therefore integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees because the alleged improvement is only provide in the claims by the judicial exception itself. The MPEP states the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicant argues the amended claims provide “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Examiner disagrees because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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 (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)
• STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Claim
1 recite a method (process), claim 8 recite a machine readable medium (manufacture), claim 15 recite a system (machine).
• STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural
Phenomenon?
Claim 1 (and similar claims 8 and 15) recites "determining a total of observations based
on the numbers of observations with respect to the respective categorical classes"
which falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping as concepts performed in the human
mind; or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, a person could write down
the statistics of a basketball game on a piece of paper. The "categorical class" of
statistics (e.g., rebound; assists; points, etc.) could be used by the person, using pen and
paper, to determine the "total of observations".
Claim 1 (and similar claims 8 and 15) recites "estimating an improved upper bound of an
average value of the data based on the categorical classes, the total of observations, and the numbers of observations with respect to the categorical classes in accordance with a dot product of a probability vector comprising a probability of the observations being in each of the categorial classes and a categorical class vector comprising the category values of the categorical classes arranged in an increasing order; facilitating online operations by determining a revenue of an additional click on the online advertisement based on the improved upper bound" which falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. The steps of “estimating an upper bound” and “determining a revenue of an additional click” are recitations of mathematical calculations, and therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application?
Claim 1 recites “a method implemented on at least one processor, a memory, and a communication platform for characterizing data via big data processing, comprising:” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 8 recites “machine readable and non-transitory medium having information recorded thereon for characterizing data, wherein the information, when read by the machine, causes the machine to perform the following steps:” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 15 recites “a system for characterizing data, comprising: a data categorization unit implemented by a processor and configured for” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “accessing, from online sources, data in big data settings, wherein the data include categorical classes and a number of observations with respect to each of the categorical classes, wherein each of the categorical classes is associated with a category value, each of the categorical classes indicates that an online advertisement is displayed in each of multiple different online settings in which the advertisement is presented to users, and a corresponding category value of each of the categorical classes indicates a number of clicks on the online advertisement displayed in the corresponding online setting” which amounts to mere necessary data gathering.
• STEP 2B Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount To Significantly More
Than The Judicial Exception?
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite additional elements which amount to merely including instructions to
implement an abstract idea on a computer. The courts have determined mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.0S(f)).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite mere necessary data gathering. The courts have determined mere
data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea is not enough to qualify as "significantly more", as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (see MPEP § 2106.0S(g)).
There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim
2 recite a method (process), claim 9 recite a machine readable medium (manufacture), claim 16 recite a system (machine).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite "wherein observations associated with the categorical classes correspond to a discrete-valued distribution" which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim
3 recite a method (process), claim 10 recite a machine readable medium (manufacture), claim 17 recite a system (machine).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claims recite "wherein the category value associated with each of the categorical classes represents an assessment of a return value associated with the categorical class" which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim
4 recite a method (process), claim 11 recite a machine readable medium (manufacture), claim 18 recite a system (machine).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims recite "wherein the average value of the data is specified by a lower
bound and the upper bound; the lower and upper bounds are estimated based on the data
with respect to an expected confidence level" which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim
5 recite a method (process), claim 12 recite a machine readable medium (manufacture), claim 19 recite a system (machine).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims recites "generating the categorical class vector V = [vi, v2, ... , vm] and the corresponding number of observations to generate a sample number vector K = [kl,
k2, ... , km], wherein m represents a number of categorical classes; calculating a plurality oft
measures, to, ti, ... , tm, wherein tD=0, tm=l, ti= lower bound of (n, kl+ k2 + ... , ki, d) for 1
<= i <m, where d is a function of the expected confidence level, and the probability vector P
= [pl, p2, ... , pm] with pi= ti - ti-1; and computing the upper bound of the average value as
the dot product of vectors P and V" which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 6 and 13
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim
6 recite a method (process), claim 13 recite a machine readable medium (manufacture).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims recite "reversing the increasing order of the categorical classes to
generate a reversed categorical class vector -V = [vm,vm-1, ... , vi] in a descending order;
reversing the order of the number of observations corresponding to the reversed
categorical classes to generate a reversed sample number vector -K = [km, km-1, ... , kl]" which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 7 and 14
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim
7 recite a method (process), claim 14 recite a machine readable medium (manufacture).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claims recites "wherein the lower bound of the average value is computed by calculating a plurality of reversed t measures, to, ti, ... , tm, wherein tD=0, tm=l, ti= lower bound of (n, (km)+ (km-1) + ... , (-ki), d) for 1 <= i <m, and a reversed probability vector -P with m probability measures, including pi =ti-ti-1; and computing the lower bound of the average value as the dot product of the reversed categorical class vector -V and the reversed probability vector -P" which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 20
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes.
Claim 20 recite a system (machine).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites "wherein the bound estimation mechanism further comprises a lower bound estimation unit configured for determining the lower bound of the average value of the data by: reversing the increasing order of the categorical classes to generate a reversed categorical class vector -V = [vm,vm-1, ... , vi] in a descending order, and the order of the number of observations corresponding to the reversed categorical classes to generate a reversed sample number vector -K = [km, km-1,... , kl]; calculating a plurality of reversed t measures, tO, ti, ... , tm, wherein tD=0, tm=l, ti=lower bound of (n, (km)+ (km-1) + ... , (-ki), d) for 1 <= i <m, and a reversed probability vector-P with m probability measures, including pi= ti - ti-1; and computing the lower bound of the average value as the dot product of the reversed categorical class vector -V and the reversed probability vector -P" which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims above do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exceptions. Looking at the limitations as an ordered
combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or
improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer
implementation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166