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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 5, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The following is in response to the amendment filed on February 5, 2026.
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, 2, 5-11, 14-18 and 21-26 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.
101 Subject Matter Eligibility analysis
Step 1: Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 14-18 and 21-26 are within the four statutory categories (a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter).
With respect to claim 1:
Step2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
determining, based on a first selecting process that selects first cells from aggregated data, first selected data, wherein the aggregated data is randomly selected from a plurality of data sources and formatted into rows and columns, and wherein the first selected data includes one or more overlapping cells and one or more first non-overlapping cells; (The “determining” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, we can leverage our memory to sort through information and pick out information (selecting) that is most important, in this case one can mentally determine first selected data where the data include overlapping and non-overlapping cells and is from a plurality of data source; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
determining, based on a second selecting process that selects second cells from the aggregated data, second selected data, wherein the second selected data includes the one or more overlapping cells and one or more second non-overlapping cells, and wherein the overlapping cells include any cell that was selected by both the first selecting process and the second selecting process; (The “determining” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, we can leverage our memory to sort through information and pick out information (selecting) that is most important, in this case one can mentally determine second selected data where the data include overlapping and non-overlapping cells; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
determining, whether the first selected data and the second selected data comprise overlapping cells; The “determining” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, we can leverage our memory to sort through information and pick out information (selecting) that is most important, in this case one can mentally determine overlapping cells between to data sets; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
based on a determination that the first selected data and the second selected data comprise overlapping cells, adjusting at least one of the one or more first model weights and the one or more second model weights; (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “generating” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of calculating weights and adding weights together which can be practically performed in the human mind, in this case one can mentally, with the aid of pen an paper, generate weights by adjusting initial weights based on a determination that the selected data comprise overlapping cells; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Generating, based on the one or more adjust first model weights and based on the one or more adjusted second model weights, one or more aggregated model weights for an aggregated model; (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “generating” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of calculating weights and adding weights together which can be practically performed in the human mind, in this case one can mentally, with the aid of pen an paper, generate weights by adjusting initial weights based on a determination that the selected data comprise overlapping cells; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Generating one or more predicted user behaviors for the plurality of data sources based on the aggregated data. (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “generating” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts generating a prediction, in this case one can mentally, generate a prediction of user behaviors based on the aggregated data; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
sending, to one or more first computing devices associated with a first data source of the plurality of data sources, the first selected data; sending, to one or more second computing devices associated with a second data source of the plurality of data sources, the second selected data; receiving, from the one or more first computing devices, one or more first model weights corresponding to a first model trained using the first selected data; receiving, from the one or more second computing devices, one or more second model weights corresponding to a second model using the second selected data; (The “Sending” and “Receiving” steps add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). These elements represent generic computer functions (i.e., e.g., mere transmitting data in conjunction with the abstract idea).)
one or more first computing devices associated with a first data source of the plurality of data sources; one or more second computing devices associated with a second data source of the plurality of data sources; the one or more first computing devices, one or more first model weights that are based on training a first model using the first selected data; from the one or more second computing devices, one or more second model weights that are based on training a second model using the second selected data; ( This describes additional elements as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
configuring the aggregated model using the one or more aggregated model weights. (These elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This “configuring” step represents computer instruction’s that are configured to apply the abstract idea. Nothing in the claim provides technical solution beyond the generic recitation of using mental process to perform the abstract idea.)
using the aggregated model. (These elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This “using” step represents computer instruction’s that are used to apply the abstract idea. Nothing in the claim provides technical solution beyond the generic recitation of using mental process to perform the abstract idea.)
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained above in step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements, such as the “to one or more first computing devices associated with a first data source of the plurality of data sources” and “from the one or more first computing devices” and “Sending”, and “Receiving”, does not add significantly more since the intended practical application is well-understood, routine, and conventional and stated at a generic level. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 2:
Step2A Prong 1: Claim 2, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, doesn’t recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the first selecting process is performed based on one or more first data confidentiality procedures associated with the first data source; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein the first selecting process results in the one or more first non-overlapping cells including first confidential data associated with the first data source; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein the second selecting process is performed based on one or more second data confidentiality procedures associated with the second data source; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and wherein the second selecting process results in the one or more second non- overlapping cells including second confidential data associated with the second data source. (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained above, the additional elements in this claim merely represents computer instructions that are configured to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation of a generic, conventional components don’t provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)
Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 5:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 recites similar limitations as corresponding to claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis (the abstract ideas of “mental process”) that utilized under step 2A Prong 1 for claim 1, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 5:
determining, based on a third selecting process that selects third cells from the aggregated data, third selected data, wherein the third selected data includes a plurality of third non-overlapping cells and is without any overlapping cells; determining, based on a fourth selecting process that selects fourth cells from the aggregated data, fourth selected data, wherein the fourth selected data includes a plurality of fourth non-overlapping cells and is without any overlapping cells; (The “determining” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, we can leverage our memory to sort through information and pick out information (selecting) that is most important, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
generating the one or more aggregated model weights for the aggregated model is performed based on the one or more third model weights and the one or more fourth model weights; (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “generating” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, coadding numerical weights from different models can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This step involves determining aggregated model weights based on third and fourth model weights involves performing mathematical calculations to combine numerical data, which constitutes an abstract idea under the mathematical concepts grouping.)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
sending, to one or more third computing devices associated with a third data source of the plurality of data sources, the third selected data; sending, to one or more fourth computing devices associated with a fourth data source of the plurality of data sources, the fourth selected data; receiving, from the one or more third computing devices, one or more third model weights corresponding to a third model trained using the third selected data; receiving, from the one or more fourth computing devices, one or more fourth model weights corresponding to a fourth model trained using the fourth selected data; (The “Sending” and “Receiving” steps add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). These elements represent generic computer functions (i.e., e.g., mere transmitting data in conjunction with the abstract idea).
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained above in Step 2A prong 2, the additional elements, such as the “one or more third computing devices associated with a third data source of the plurality of data sources” and “from the one or more third computing devices” and “Sending”, and “Receiving”, does not add significantly more since the intended practical application is well-understood, routine, and conventional and stated at a generic level. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 6:
Step2A Prong 1: Claim 6, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, recites further limitation such as:
determining, based on a randomized aggregation process, the aggregated data, (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “determining” step, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, adding data randomly can be practically performed in the human mind and/ or with the aid of pen and paper, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
receiving, from the one or more first computing devices, one or more first data records; receiving, from the one or more second computing devices, one or more second data records; (The “receiving” steps as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). These elements represent generic computer functions (i.e., e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea).)
wherein the randomized aggregation process aggregates the rows of the one or more first data records and the rows of the one or more second data records into a randomized order. (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained above in Step 2A prong 2, the additional elements, such as the recitation of “the rows of the one or more first data records and the rows of the one or more second data records into a randomized order” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the “receiving” steps, as recited in the claim, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they represent well-known, routine, and conventional functions in the field when they are claimed in a generic manner, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)
Therefore, claim 6 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 7:
Step2A Prong 1: Claim 7, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, doesn’t recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional Elements
receiving, from the one or more first computing devices, one or more first data records that include first confidential data; (The “receiving” steps add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). These elements represent generic computer functions (i.e., e.g., mere transmitting data in conjunction with the abstract idea).)
receiving, from the one or more second computing devices, one or more second data records that include second confidential data; (The “receiving” steps add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). These elements represent generic computer functions (i.e., e.g., mere transmitting data in conjunction with the abstract idea).)
hashing the first confidential data, resulting in hashed first confidential data; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
hashing the second confidential data, resulting in hashed second confidential data; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein the aggregated data includes the hashed first confidential data and the hashed second confidential data. (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained above in Step 2A prong 2, the additional elements, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the “receiving” steps, as recited in the claim, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they represent well-known routine, and conventional functions in the field when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 8:
Step2A Prong 1: Claim 8, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, recites further limitation such as:
determining, based on the plurality of data sources, to send third selected data to the third data source; (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “determining” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, determining the source of a data can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the plurality of data sources includes a third data source; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained above in Step 2A prong 2, the additional elements, such as the recitation of “plurality of data sources includes a third data source” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 9:
Step2A Prong 1: Claim 9, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, doesn’t recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the aggregated data includes one or more first data records associated with the first data source; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein the one or more first data record includes data indicative of transactions with users associated with the first data source; (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein the first model is usable to determine one or more predicted user behaviors for the first data source; and wherein the aggregated model is usable to determine one or more predicted user behaviors for the plurality of data sources. (Describes an additional element as “apply it”, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained above, the additional elements in this claim merely represents computer instructions that are configured to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation of a generic, conventional components don’t provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)
Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 10:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 1, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 1, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 10.
Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 11:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 2, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 2, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 11.
Therefore, claim 11 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 14:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 5, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 5, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 14.
Therefore, claim 14 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 15:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 6, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 6, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 15.
Therefore, claim 15 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 16:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 7, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 7, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 16.
Therefore, claim 16 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 17:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 1, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 1, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 17.
Therefore, claim 17 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 18:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 2, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 2, as described above, is equally applicable to claim`8.
Therefore, claim 18 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 19:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 3, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 3, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 19.
Therefore, claim 19 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 21:
Step2A Prong 1: Claim 21, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, recites further limitation such as:
Wherein applying the adjustment to at least one of the one or more first model weights and the one or more second model weights comprises: increasing at least one model weight of the one or more first model weights or the one or more second model weights, based on determining that the first selected data and the second selected data comprise overlapping cells. (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “increasing” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, increases a weight , in this case one can mentally increase a weight based on the determination that data comprises overlapping cells; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 22:
Step2A Prong 1: Claim 22, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, recites further limitation such as:
Wherein applying the adjustment to at least one of the one or more first model weights and the one or more second model weights comprises: reducing at least one model weight of the one or more first model weights or the one more second model weights, based on determining that the fist selected data and the second selected data comprise overlapping cells. (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “reducing” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, reduces a weight, in this case one can mentally decrease a weight based on the determination that data comprises overlapping cells; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 23:
Step2A Prong 1: Claim 23, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, recites further limitation such as:
Wherein applying the adjustment to at least one of the one or more first model weights and the one or more second model weights is based on determining whether the first selected data and the second selected data comprise a threshold amount of overlapping cells. (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “applying an adjustment” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, applies and adjustment based on a determination that a threshold amount of overlapping cells is met ; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 24:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 recites similar limitations as corresponding to claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis (the abstract ideas of “mental process”) that utilized under step 2A Prong 1 for claim 1, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 5:
determine, based on a third selecting process that selects third cells from the aggregated data, third selected data, determine, based on a fourth selecting process that selects fourth cells from the aggregated data, fourth selected data; (The “determining” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, we can leverage our memory to sort through information and pick out information (selecting) that is most important, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
generating the one or more aggregated model weights for the aggregated model is performed based on the one or more third model weights and the one or more fourth model weights and the indication that the third selected data and the fourth selected data are without any overlapping cells. (This is an abstract idea of a “Mental Process.” The “generating” step, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, coadding numerical weights from different models can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This step involves determining aggregated model weights based on third and fourth model weights involves performing mathematical calculations to combine numerical data, which constitutes an abstract idea under the mathematical concepts grouping.)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
store an indication that the third selected data and the fourth selected data are without any overlapping cells; send, to one or more third computing devices associated with a third data source of the plurality of data sources, the third selected data; send, to one or more fourth computing devices associated with a fourth data source of the plurality of data sources, the fourth selected data; receive, from the one or more third computing devices, one or more third model weights corresponding to a third model trained using the third selected data; receive, from the one or more fourth computing devices, one or more fourth model weights corresponding to a fourth model trained using the fourth selected data; (The “Sending” and “Receiving” steps add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). These elements represent generic computer functions (i.e., e.g., mere transmitting data in conjunction with the abstract idea).
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained above in Step 2A prong 2, the additional elements, such as the “one or more third computing devices associated with a third data source of the plurality of data sources” and “from the one or more third computing devices” and “Sending”, and “Receiving”, does not add significantly more since the intended practical application is well-understood, routine, and conventional and stated at a generic level. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Therefore, claim 24 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 25:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 6, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 6, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 25.
Therefore, claim 25 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 26:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 7, Therefore, the same subject matter analysis that was utilized for claim 6, as described above, is equally applicable to claim 26.
Therefore, claim 26 is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, Applicant argues the human mind is not equipped to randomly select data, as presently required by claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The concept of random selection, whether perfect or imperfect, remains a mental process. Humans routinely perform random or arbitrary selection, such as mentally picking an item from a list without a predetermined pattern or using subjective criteria to mimic randomness.
Applicant also argues “The human mind is not equipped to adjust model weights, as presently required by the claims”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While computational complexity may exceed human capacity for large-scale models, the fundamental process of adjusting weights based on overlapping data is a conceptual activity. One can mentally envision adjusting values based on overlap or other criteria, even if not to the precise degree or scale of a computer. The abstract idea doctrine is not limited to what the human mind can do perfectly or efficiently, but to whether the steps are fundamentally mental. The claimed steps of adjusting weights based on data overlap can be performed mentally, and thus remain within the abstract idea category.
Applicant also argues “Accordingly, the claims provide a solution that improves the training of machine learning models based on training datasets and configuration information from previously trained machine learning models.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The inclusion of technical details or improvements to a field does not, by itself, render the claims patent-eligible if the underlying steps are directed to abstract ideas. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that implementing an abstract idea in a specific technological context, or with claimed improvements, does not confer eligibility unless the claims are “integrated into a practical application” or improve the functioning of the computer itself in a specific technical manner. The claimed steps random selection, adjusting weights based on overlap remain fundamentally abstract ideas, and the technical context does not transform them into patent-eligible subject matter.
Applicant also argues “The claims amount to an inventive concept significantly more than any abstract idea recited in the claims because the claims operate in a non-conventional and non-generic way.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mere combination of abstract steps, even if performed in a novel sequence, does not render the claims patent-eligible unless the combination is “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself and provides a technical improvement to computer functionality. In this case, the combination of random selection, overlap determination, and weight adjustment, while perhaps novel in arrangement, does not add an inventive concept beyond the abstract ideas themselves. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to computer technology, but rather apply abstract processes in a conventional computing environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIELA D REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-1006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, David Wiley can be reached at 571-272-3923. 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.
/Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142