DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The invention, as taught in Claims 21-40, is directed to “mental steps” and “mathematical concepts” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
• determine feature data indicative of a set of features (mental step)
• determine,..., a training distribution (mathematical step)
• apply an input data instance to the predictive model (there is no "receiving" step for the data. therefore the invention already has it.) (mathematical step)
• data reservoir (mathematical data)
• select at least a portion of the candidate training data from at least the data bin of the data reservoir (mental step)
• train the predictive model (mathematical step)
• classify data collected from one or more network sources based on the updated predictive model (mathematical step)
Claim 21
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “21. A system, comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to…” Therefore, it is a “system” (or “apparatus”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 21 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 21 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical concepts”:
• determine feature data indicative of a set of features (mental step)
• determine,..., a training distribution (mathematical step)
• apply an input data instance to the predictive model (there is no "receiving" step for the data. therefore the invention already has it.) (mathematical step)
• data reservoir (mathematical data)
• select at least a portion of the candidate training data from at least the data bin of the data reservoir (mental step)
• train the predictive model (mathematical step)
• generate an updated predictive model by retraining (mathematical step)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A computer
(2) A storage device
(3) An addition of the input data instance to a data bin of a data reservoir…
(4) An input to the updated predictive model…
(5) An obtaining from the updated predictive model…
A “computer” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a 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. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “computer” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “storage device” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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.
***
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); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This “storage device” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
An “addition of the input data instance to a data bin of a data reservoir” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “addition of the input data instance to a data bin of a data reservoir” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
An “input to the updated predictive model…” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “input to the updated predictive model…” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
An “obtaining from the updated predictive model…” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “obtaining from the updated predictive model…” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A computer
(2) A storage device
(3) An addition of the input data instance to a data bin of a data reservoir…
(4) An input to the updated predictive model…
(5) An obtaining from the updated predictive model…
A “computer” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a 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. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “storage device” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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.
***
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); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
An “addition of the input data instance to a data bin of a data reservoir” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
An “input to the updated predictive model…” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
An “obtaining from the updated predictive model…” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 21 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites:
22. The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to further cause the one or more computers to:
determine a confidence value associated with the label for the input data instance; and
add the input data instance to the data bin of the data reservoir in response to the confidence value satisfying a defined confidence value threshold.
Applicant’s Claim 22 merely teaches mathematical steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 22 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites:
23. The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to further cause the one or more computers to:
configure a set of data bins of the data reservoir based on the training distribution representative of the goal for the predictive model.
Applicant’s Claim 23 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 23 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites:
24. The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to further cause the one or more computers to:
configure a set of data bins of the data reservoir based on configuration data related to size capacity for respective data bins.
Applicant’s Claim 24 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 24 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 25
Claim 25 recites:
25. The system of claim 24, wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to further cause the one or more computers to:
add the input data instance to a data bin of a data reservoir in response to the data bin satisfying size capacity criterion.
Applicant’s Claim 25 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 25 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 26
Claim 26 recites:
26. The system of claim 24, wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to further cause the one or more computers to:
replace a particular input data instance stored in the data bin of the data reservoir with the input data instance in response to the data bin not satisfying size capacity criterion.
Applicant’s Claim 26 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 26 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 27
Claim 27 recites:
27. The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more storage devices store instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to further cause the one or more computers to:
allocate respective labels for respective data bins of the data reservoir; and
compare the label for the input data instance to the respective labels for the respective data bins of the data reservoir.
Applicant’s Claim 27 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 27 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 28
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “28. (New) A computer-implemented method, comprising…” Therefore, it is a “method” (or “process”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 28 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 28 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical concepts”:
• determine feature data indicative of a set of features (mental step)
• determine,..., a training distribution (mathematical step)
• apply an input data instance to the predictive model (there is no "receiving" step for the data. therefore the invention already has it.) (mathematical step)
• data reservoir (mathematical data)
• select at least a portion of the candidate training data from at least the data bin of the data reservoir (mental step)
• train the predictive model (mathematical step)
• generate an updated predictive model by retraining (mathematical step)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “computing device comprising a processor”
(2) An input to the updated predictive model…
(3) An obtaining from the updated predictive model…
A “processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a 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. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “processor” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
An “input to the updated predictive model…” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “input to the updated predictive model…” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
An “obtaining from the updated predictive model…” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “obtaining from the updated predictive model…” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “computing device comprising a processor”
(2) An input to the updated predictive model…
(3) An obtaining from the updated predictive model…
A “processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a 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. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
An “input to the updated predictive model…” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
An “obtaining from the updated predictive model…” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 28 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 29
Claim 29 recites:
29. The computer-implemented method of claim 28, further comprising:
determining, by the computing device, a confidence value associated with the label for the input data instance; and
adding, by the computing device, the input data instance to the data bin of the data reservoir in response to the confidence value satisfying a defined confidence value threshold.
Applicant’s Claim 29 merely teaches mathematical steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 29 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 30
Claim 30 recites:
30. The computer-implemented method of claim 28, further comprising:
configuring, by the computing device, a set of data bins of the data reservoir based on the training distribution representative of the goal for the predictive model.
Applicant’s Claim 30 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 30 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 31
Claim 31 recites:
31. The computer-implemented method of claim 28, further comprising:
configuring, by the computing device, a set of data bins of the data reservoir based on configuration data related to size capacity for respective data bins.
Applicant’s Claim 31 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 31 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 32
Claim 32 recites:
32. The computer-implemented method of claim 31, further comprising:
adding, by the computing device, the input data instance to a data bin of a data reservoir in response to the data bin satisfying size capacity criterion.
Applicant’s Claim 32 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 32 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 33
Claim 33 recites:
33. The computer-implemented method of claim 31, further comprising:
replacing, by the computing device, a particular input data instance stored in the data bin of the data reservoir with the input data instance in response to the data bin not satisfying size capacity criterion.
Applicant’s Claim 33 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 33 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 34
Claim 34 recites:
34. The computer-implemented method of claim 28, further comprising:
allocating, by the computing device, respective labels for respective data bins of the data reservoir; and
comparing, by the computing device, the label for the input data instance to the respective labels for the respective data bins of the data reservoir.
Applicant’s Claim 34 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 34 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 35
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “35. (New) A computer program product, stored on a computer readable medium, comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to…” Therefore, it is a “computer readable medium” (or “product of manufacture”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 35 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 35 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical concepts”:
• determine feature data indicative of a set of features (mental step)
• determine,..., a training distribution (mathematical step)
• apply an input data instance to the predictive model (there is no "receiving" step for the data. therefore the invention already has it.) (mathematical step)
• data reservoir (mathematical data)
• select at least a portion of the candidate training data from at least the data bin of the data reservoir (mental step)
• train the predictive model (mathematical step)
• generate an updated predictive model by retraining (mathematical step)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) An input to the updated predictive model…
(2) An obtaining from the updated predictive model…
An “input to the updated predictive model…” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “input to the updated predictive model…” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
An “obtaining from the updated predictive model…” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “obtaining from the updated predictive model…” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) An input to the updated predictive model…
(2) An obtaining from the updated predictive model…
An “input to the updated predictive model…” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
An “obtaining from the updated predictive model…” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
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, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 35 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 36
Claim 36 recites:
36. The computer program product of claim 35, further comprising instructions that when executed by the one or more computers cause the one or more computers to:
determine a confidence value associated with the label for the input data instance; and
add the input data instance to the data bin of the data reservoir in response to the confidence value satisfying a defined confidence value threshold.
Applicant’s Claim 36 merely teaches mathematical steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 36 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 37
Claim 37 recites:
37. The computer program product of claim 35, further comprising instructions that when executed by the one or more computers cause the one or more computers to:
configure a set of data bins of the data reservoir based on the training distribution representative of the goal for the predictive model.
Applicant’s Claim 37 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 37 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 38
Claim 38 recites:
38. The computer program product of claim 37, further comprising instructions that when executed by the one or more computers cause the one or more computers to:
add the input data instance to a data bin of a data reservoir in response to the data bin satisfying size capacity criterion.
Applicant’s Claim 38 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 38 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 39
Claim 39 recites:
39. The computer program product of claim 37, further comprising instructions that when executed by the one or more computers cause the one or more computers to:
replace a particular input data instance stored in the data bin of the data reservoir with the input data instance in response to the data bin not satisfying size capacity criterion.
Applicant’s Claim 39 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 39 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 40
Claim 40 recites:
40. The computer program product of claim 35, further comprising instructions that when executed by the one or more computers cause the one or more computers to:
allocate respective labels for respective data bins of the data reservoir; and
compare the label for the input data instance to the respective labels for the respective data bins of the data reservoir.
Applicant’s Claim 40 merely teaches mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 40 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 MAY 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Argument 1
Claim 21 recites specific implementation steps that cannot practically be performed in a human mind. For instance, claim 21 recites, inter alia:
determine feature data indicative of a set of features associated with a training data set for a trained predictive model, wherein the trained predictive model is trained using the training data set;
determine, based on the feature data associated with the training data set, a training distribution representative of a goal for the trained predictive model;
input, to the trained predictive model, an input data instance;
obtain, from the trained predictive model, a first label for the input data instance;
add the input data instance to a data bin of a data reservoir based on the first label, wherein the data reservoir comprises candidate training data for the training data set;
responsive to a determination that the training distribution representative of the goal for the trained predictive model comprises goal criteria associated with at least one label that corresponds to the first label, select at least a portion of the candidate training data from the data bin of the data reservoir that comprises the input data instance;
generate an updated predictive model by retraining the trained predictive model based at least in part on the portion of the candidate training data;
input, to the updated predictive model, data collected from one or more network sources; and
obtain, from the updated predictive model, one or more classifications associated with the data collected from the one or more network sources.
A human mind is not equipped to perform any of these tasks. Therefore, claim 21 does not recite a mental process as defined by the MPEP.
Applicant merely lists the amendments that were made and asserts in a conclusory manner that they cannot be performed in the human mind. An example of a limitation from the claim that is, in its broadest reasonable interpretation mental in nature is:
determine feature data indicative of a set of features associated with a training data set for a trained predictive model, wherein the trained predictive model is trained using the training data set;
Further, Applicant bundles in limitations that were found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional “additional elements.”
For instance, two such irrelevant “additional element” limitations raised in the argument are:
input, to the trained predictive model, an input data instance;
obtain, from the trained predictive model, a first label for the input data instance;
Though not mental steps, they do not make the claims eligible. These and other issues are discussed further in the rejections, above.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 2
The 2024 Guidance provides additional examples of "mental processes" based on Federal Circuit cases, including:
" A claim to "a specific, hardware based RFID serial number data structure" (i.e., an RFID transponder), where the data structure is uniquely encoded (i.e., there is "a unique correspondence between the data physically encoded on the [RFID transponder] with pre-authorized blocks of serial numbers"), ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 55 F.4th 900, 909 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
" A claim to a method of"
(1) receiving user information;
(2) providing a polling question;
(3) receiving and storing an answer;
(4) comparing that answer to generate a 'likelihood of match' with other users; and
(5) displaying certain user profiles based on that likelihood" could practically be performed in the human mind (i.e., "[a] human mind could review people's answers to questions and identify matches based on those answers"), Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
" A claim to "the collection of information from various sources (a Federal database, a State database, and a case worker) and understanding the meaning of that information (determining whether a person is receiving SSDI benefits and determining whether they are eligible for benefits under the law)," where "'[t]hese steps can be performed by a human, using "observation, evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion," because they involve making determinations and identifications, which are mental tasks humans routinely do,"' and thus can practically be performed in the human mind, In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
"Claims to "the use of an algorithm generated content-based identifier to perform the claimed data-management functions," which include limitations to "controlling access to data items,""retrieving and delivering copies of data items," and "marking copies of data items for deletion," where the claims cover "a medley of mental processes that, taken together, amount only to a multistep mental process," such that the steps can be practically performed in the human mind, PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1316- 18 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
2024 Guidance, p. 58136. Claim 21 is not directed to any of the above.
Examiner cited the applicable M.P.E.P. sections in the rejections. Applicant has not rebutted the applicability of the sections applied.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 3
Moreover, in Hannun, the PTAB held that a claim did not recite a mental process because the claim included steps such as "receiving an input audio from a user,""inputting [an] audio file along with a context of spectrogram frames into a trained neural network,""obtaining predicted character probabilities from the training neural network," and "decoding a transcription of the input audio using the predicted character probability outputs from the trained neural network." See e.g., Hannun, No. 2018-003323, pages 2-3. Specifically, the PTAB "disagree[d] with the Examiner that the claims recite""a mental process." see id. at 9-10.
Like the claims of Hannun, claim 1 for example, recites, inter alia:
determine feature data indicative of a set of features associated with a training data set for a trained predictive model, wherein the trained predictive model is trained using the training data set;
determine, based on the feature data associated with the training data set, a training distribution representative of a goal for the trained predictive model;
input, to the trained predictive model, an input data instance;
obtain, from the trained predictive model, a first label for the input data instance;
add the input data instance to a data bin of a data reservoir based on the first label, wherein the data reservoir comprises candidate training data for the training data set;
responsive to a determination that the training distribution representative of the goal for the trained predictive model comprises goal criteria associated with at least one label that corresponds to the first label, select at least a portion of the candidate training data from the data bin of the data reservoir that comprises the input data instance;
generate an updated predictive model by retraining the trained predictive model based at least in part on the portion of the candidate training data;
input, to the updated predictive model, data collected from one or more network sources; and
obtain, from the updated predictive model, one or more classifications associated with the data collected from the one or more network sources.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least because the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception under prong one of Step 2A.
Applicant merely lists the amendments that were made and asserts in a conclusory manner that they are not judicial exceptions. An example of a limitation from the claim that is, in its broadest reasonable interpretation mental in nature is:
determine feature data indicative of a set of features associated with a training data set for a trained predictive model, wherein the trained predictive model is trained using the training data set;
Further, Applicant bundles in limitations that were found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional “additional elements.” For instance, two such irrelevant “additional element” limitations raised in the argument are:
input, to the trained predictive model, an input data instance;
obtain, from the trained predictive model, a first label for the input data instance;
Though not mental steps, they do not make the claims eligible. These and other issues are discussed further in the rejections, above.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 4
Regarding Prong One, the Office Action also alleges that several features of claim 21 recite mathematical concepts. Office Action, p. 2. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
***
Claim 21 recites, inter alia, determine feature data indicative of a set of features associated with a training data set for a trained predictive model, wherein the trained predictive model is trained using the training data set;
determine, based on the feature data associated with the training data set, a training distribution representative of a goal for the trained predictive model;
input, to the trained predictive model, an input data instance;
obtain, from the trained predictive model, a first label for the input data instance;
add the input data instance to a data bin of a data reservoir based on the first label, wherein the data reservoir comprises candidate training data for the training data set;
responsive to a determination that the training distribution representative of the goal for the trained predictive model comprises goal criteria associated with at least one label that corresponds to the first label, select at least a portion of the candidate training data from the data bin of the data reservoir that comprises the input data instance;
generate an updated predictive model by retraining the trained predictive model based at least in part on the portion of the candidate training data;
input, to the updated predictive model, data collected from one or more network sources; and
obtain, from the updated predictive model, one or more classifications associated with the data collected from the one or more network sources.
While the claimed predictions may involve mathematical concepts, they do not recite a mathematical concept.
Here, as in XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, though the claims may involve "mathematical concepts," the claims are not directed to a mathematical concept. Therefore, claim 21 does not recite a mathematical concept as defined by the MPEP as clarified by the 2024 Guidance.
Indeed, the MPEP states that "it is critical that examiners look at the claim 'as a whole,' in other words, the claim should be evaluated 'as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps."' MPEP § 2106.05(a). When "performing this evaluation, Examiners should be 'careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims' by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims." Id. (citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least because the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception under prong one of Step 2A.
There were specific things that Examiner pointed out as being mathematical. Applicant's argument throws the entire claim into the argument, thus, sweeping in things that were regarded as either “mental steps” or well-understood, routine, and conventional “additional elements” into the argument. Those elements are irrelevant.
To disprove Applicant's conclusory argument that there are no mathematical steps in the claim, Examiner points out one of the claim limitations that was determined to be purely mathematical. Specifically:
determine, based on the feature data associated with the training data set, a training distribution representative of a goal for the trained predictive model;
This determination of the training distribution is defined as a mathematical calculation in the Specification as follows:
[0049] In some embodiments, the data instance, represented by feature vector x 305, is assigned to each of a group of N global datasets 310 containing data instances of the same type as the input data instance, and an estimated distribution 312 is calculated for each dataset.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 5
The 2024 Guidance clarifies that "[o]ne way to demonstrate integration of the judicial exception into a practical application is to show that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field," where the "improvement to a computer or other technology [is] described in the specification." 2024 Guidance, pp. 58136-7.
Even if claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea-which, Applicant submits, it is no
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the independent claims and any claims depending therefrom.
Applicant presents nothing that is anything more than practicing abstract mental or mathematical steps on a computer. Further, regarding the Specification citations mentioned by Applicant, there is one that recites:
[0003] A system that automatically identifies new businesses based on data sampled from a data stream representing data collected from a variety of online sources (e.g., websites, blogs, and social media) is an example of a system that processes dynamic data. Analysis of such dynamic data typically is based on data-driven models that depend on consistent data, yet dynamic data are inherently inconsistent in both content and quality.
Applicant cites this paragraph as having eligible material, but in actuality, it is abstract because it is both a set of mental steps and organizing human activity. The other cited material is no more eligible than this.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 6
Step 2B
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test focuses on whether the additional elements present in the claim and their combination is unconventional and provides an inventive concept. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II).
Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of additional elements of claim 21 are not "conventional" as alleged by the Office Action. Notably, the claims recite an unconventional combination of operations and data structures that provides non-routine results - and thus the claims provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action improperly rejects claim 21 (and the claims depending therefrom) as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter and requests withdrawal of the rejection.
Further, since computer is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the computer to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Therefore, simply using the computer to produce a result is not eligible.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 7
Independent Claims 28 and 35
For at least similar reasons as set forth above, Applicant submits that the independent claims 28 and 35 as amended recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and requests withdrawal of the rejection to claims 28 and 35 (and the claims that depend therefrom) as well as allowance in due course.
Similar arguments for similar independent claims are similarly unpersuasive.
Regarding the dependent claims, there is no eligible matter in the independent claims that are incorporated by reference to the dependent claims. Therefore, the defects in those claims are not cured.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
04 AUG 2025
Prosecution Insights