DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 12/23/2025 submission filed in Application 17/644,240.
1, 11, 18 have been amended. Claims 1-7, 10-18, and 21 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 regarding the rejections under 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “Applicant submits that the features of the independent claims cannot be considered as falling within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, at least because the claimed subject matter is not a fundamental economic principle or practice, nor a commercial or legal interaction, nor managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions with people. For example, the claims include receiving unstructured data, deriving themes and generating a sentiment score, via execution of an automated text mining process using a machine learning algorithm, which is not a commercial or legal interaction (it is a technological activity), nor is it a fundamental economic practice, nor a technique for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The text mining is recited broadly. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can extract useful information and nontrivial patterns from a large volume of text databases. Further, the machine learning in the claim is also recited broadly. The Examiner has not asserted that the machine leaning is a mental process. However, the claims do not describe how the text mining process uses machine leaning to derive themes from keyword. As such, the broadly recited machine learning attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. This is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to provide and inventive concept.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Applicant submits that the features of the independent claims, at least as now amended, cannot be considered as falling within the Mental Processes grouping, at least because the claimed subject matter is both not performed in the human mind and cannot practically be performed in the human mind. For example, the claims include execution of an automated text mining process that mines the unstructured text data for employee sentiment and includes input of the unstructured text data to the machine learning algorithm, and the application by the machine learning algorithm to derive, based on tone of unstructured text, themes and generate the sentiment score, which is not something that is performed in the human mind and cannot practically be performed in the human mind.”
The claim recites mental processes including using a weighted model to calculate a score and updating a change management scorecard. Further, the amendments that are directed to text mining do not save the claims. The text mining is recited broadly and a human can mine text to derive themes from keywords. The claims have been amended to recited “wherein execution of the automated text mining process mines the unstructured text data for employee sentiment and includes input of the unstructured text data to the machine learning algorithm, and the application by the machine learning algorithm to derive, based on tone of unstructured text, themes and generate the sentiment score”. However, the claims still do not recited how the machine learning algorithm processes data to derive, based on tone of unstructured text, themes and generate the sentiment score. As such, the broadly recited machine learning does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “As described in Applicant's specification, for example, conventional manual evaluations of an enterprises' change management ability are subjective (leading to different evaluations), time consuming and error-prone. See, e.g., para. [0004] of Applicant's specification. To resolve these problems, embodiments employ a machine learning algorithm to analyze unstructured text data related to employee sentiment. The machine learning algorithm uses a neural network and automated text mining with respect to frequency of comments and tone of comments to derive themes from keywords found in the unstructured text data provided by employees. The machine learning algorithm then uses the derived themes to provide a sentiment score. The machine learning algorithm is one that improves automatically through experience and use of data. The machine learning algorithm builds a model based on sample data (e.g., training data) to make a decision without the use of explicit programming. Improving the machine learning algorithm through feedback and experience, the system may continuously adjust operation to achieve better performance. Further, using the machine learning model trained with lots of data points avoids the subjective and error-prone evaluation of conventional manual evaluations. See, e.g., paras. [0036], and [0042] of Applicant's specification.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The execution of the machine learning algorithm, trained with sample data is indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
In the instant case, the additional elements of the broadly recited machine learning attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. For example, the claims do not state the particular way that the machine learning is executed to perform text mining or derive themes from keywords. The claims have been amended to recited “wherein execution of the automated text mining process mines the unstructured text data for employee sentiment and includes input of the unstructured text data to the machine learning algorithm, and the application by the machine learning algorithm to derive, based on tone of unstructured text, themes and generate the sentiment score”. However, the claims still do not recited how the machine learning algorithm processes data to derive, based on tone of unstructured text, themes and generate the sentiment score. In In Ex Parte Desjardins the Appeals Review Panel found that “In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification”. In the instant case there is no such technical improvement to machine learning processes. The machine leaning processes is recited broadly and no improvement is disclosed. As such, the broadly recited machine learning does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
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 1-7, 10-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case Claims 1-7, 10 are directed toward a change management evaluation system. Claims 11-17 are directed toward A change management evaluation method. Claims 18, 21 are directed toward a computer program product for change management evaluation system. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of change management which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
wherein at least one health dimension score is based at least in part on a sentiment score automatically generated by an algorithm analysis of unstructured text data, at least one health dimension score comprises a change consultant analysis, and at least one health dimension score comprises leader engagement;
(ii) adjust data in the enterprise health data store based on the received unstructured text data,
(iii) derive themes from keywords in the unstructured text data and generate the sentiment score based on the derived themes via execution of an automated text mining process
wherein execution of the automated text mining process mines the unstructured text data for employee sentiment to derive, based on tone of unstructured text, themes and generate the sentiment score;
(v) for each enterprise unit, use a weighted average model to automatically calculate an overall unit health score for each enterprise unit based on the associated health dimension scores, wherein the enterprise comprises an insurance company and the enterprise units are associated with insurance lines of business,
(vi) update a change management scorecard of an interactive graphical change management display based on the calculated overall unit health scores, wherein the change management scorecard includes current overall unit health scores and information about prior overall unit health scores to highlight and understand trending over time; and
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
The instant claims are directed to determining enterprise health by evaluating its change readiness which is a fundamental business practice.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
The claim recites mental processes including using a weighted model to calculate a score and updating a change management scorecard. Further, the amendments that are directed to text mining do not save the claims. The text mining is recited broadly and a human can mine text to derive themes from keywords. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A change management evaluation system implemented via a back-end application computer server, comprising:
(a) an enterprise health data store that contains encrypted electronic records associated with a set of enterprise units, each encrypted electronic record including an electronic record identifier and plurality of health dimension scores associated with an enterprise's ability to implement changes;
(b) the back-end application computer server, coupled to the enterprise health data store, including: a computer processor, and a computer memory, coupled to the computer processor, storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor cause the back-end application computer server to:
(i) receive, from one or more remote change management devices, the unstructured text data;
execution of the machine learning algorithm, trained with sample data; and includes input of the unstructured text data to the machine learning algorithm, and the application by the machine learning algorithm
(iv) automatically retrieve, from the enterprise health data store, the health dimension scores associated with each enterprise unit,
(vii) generate a pop-up window on the interactive graphical change management display in response to selection of the enterprise unit, wherein the pop-up window provides additional information that is not available without the selection, reducing a number of electronic messages transmitted via a distributed communication network;
(viii)automatically transmit the updated change management scorecard to a communication device in a case at least one health dimension score exceeds a threshold value;
(c) a communication port coupled to the back-end application computer server to that exchanges data with a remote change management device to support the interactive graphical change management display, including the updated change management scorecard, via security features and the distributed communication network.
However, back-end application computer server coupled to the enterprise health data store, including: a computer processor, and a computer memory, coupled to the computer processor, storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor cause the back-end application computer server to perform the abstract idea is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Further, the enterprise health data store that contains electronic records amounts to generic data storage. That is because merely storing data in a data store does not meaningfully limit the process of calculating a health score. The fact that the records are encrypted does not save the claim. The claims do not positively recite how the data is encrypted, or describe a particular way that the data is encrypted. The claims merely require that previously encrypted data is stored in a data store which amounts to insignificant data storage.
Further, the execution of the machine learning algorithm, trained with sample data is indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
In the instant case, the additional elements of the broadly recited machine learning attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. For example, the claims do not state the particular way that the machine learning is executed to perform text mining or derive themes from keywords. The claims have been amended to recited “wherein execution of the automated text mining process mines the unstructured text data for employee sentiment and includes input of the unstructured text data to the machine learning algorithm, and the application by the machine learning algorithm to derive, based on tone of unstructured text, themes and generate the sentiment score”. However, the claims still do not recited how the machine learning algorithm processes data to derive, based on tone of unstructured text, themes and generate the sentiment score. As such, the broadly recited machine learning does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further MPEP 2105.05(g) explains that data gathering and data output can be considered pre-solution activity and post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) that states:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
In the instant case, the automatic retrieval of health dimension scores and the receipt of unstructured data are considered mere data gathering which is incidental to the primary process in a similar way that obtaining information about credit card transactions to be analyzed was incidental to the primary process explained above. Further, MPEP 2106.05 also states Examiner should evaluate whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. In this case, the broadly recited retrieval of data from the health store is well known.
Similarly, the interactive graphical change management display that includes a pop-up window to display additional information is not meaningfully different from the post solution activity of a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. Both the instant case and the example cited in the MPEP merely display the result of an analysis in a manner that is not integrated into the claim as a whole.
When viewing the recited display and data gathering in combination with the generic computer and broadly recited machine learning does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the recited computer elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, the retrieval of data is recited broadly in the claims. MPEP 2106.05(d) states receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data is conventional when claimed generically (see 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)). As such, the broadly retrieval of data is considered well-known and conventional as established by the MPEP and relevant case law.
Further, nothing in the specification indicates that the display of information is anything other than conventional. This type of interactive display is present on most of the types of user devices disclosed in the Applicant’s speciation. For example, smart phones, tables, PDA,s and laptops all permit a user to view and interact with a display. The following references are evidence that the recited display with a pop-up window is well-known and conventional in the state of the art.
Rowady US 20050261999 A1 [0080] A third and more detailed level of information can be accessed by the user by clicking on any of the icons in the catalyst map, or by clicking on any one of the links contained inside the corresponding pop-up window. At this level, the full set of metadata or user defined subset of metadata, which will typically be greater than that illustrated at the previous level of information, may be displayed in the Catalyst List Pane 80 and/or the Catalyst Description Pane 230.
Tomchik US 20210327586 A1 [0032] FIG. 5 is an injury and treatment overview display 500 in accordance with some embodiments. The display 500 might provide a summary associated with an ICD code 510, selection icons 520 to add or remove a medical diagnosis, make a diagnosis primary, get a recommendation, etc. According to some embodiments, selection of a diagnosis (e.g., via touch screen or a computer mouse pointer 590) might result in a pop-up window providing additional information (e.g., an indication that the injury is under investigation, is being treated, etc.)
Phaniraj US 20210287149 A1 The client device can format visual attributes of the markers according to the values of the selected metric(s) associated with the facilities (510). A user may also interact with the facility map and select the visual marker for a particular facility of interest (512). In response, the client device may render a pop-up window (e.g., window 422) in the vicinity of the visual marker that shows additional information about the facility (514). The user may select the visual marker for the facility a second time or in a different fashion, or may select another UI element presented alongside the facility map (516), and in response the client device renders a detailed view (e.g., view 400e) of information about the selected facility (518).
Yoder US 20140172465 A1 [0035] The program structure portion 410 of the screen 400 shows a graphical representation of the structure of the workers comp program for this business as related to two separate layers, a client loss retention layer 412 and a risk transfer layer 414 also referred to as the statutory excess (XS) layer. Risk retention refers to the amount that the business is required to pay before the insurance policy will pay on claims. The risk transfer refers to the amount of risk that is transferred to the insurance company that has written the policy. In this particular case, the retention layer 412 amount is $500,000 and the statutory XS layer 414 is the amount over this value. In this example, the layer 414 amount is $10,000,000, which is not shown on the screen 400, but as described below is available via a pop-up window. While not shown in this figure, the TCOR application 155 allows the user to tap on these layers 412 and 414 of the program structure to receive additional information concerning the layer via a pop-up window.
Coonrod US 20190259103 A1 [0037] FIG. 2 is an interactive graphical pricing insight user interface 200 in accordance with some embodiments. According to some embodiments, the interface 200 is associated with a spreadsheet computer application retention model and includes a display area 210 having a series of tables associated with telephone values, internet values, etc. The tables might display, for a variety of risk relationship categories, a quote count, an actual premium, an issue rate, a proposed premium, a proposed premium issue rate, a new proposed premium, a new proposed premium issue rate, etc. In this way, an administrator such as a manager can view the potential impact proposed adjustments to a parameter associated with a risk relationship (e.g., a proposed insurance premium increase might be expected to reduce an associated issue rate). According to some embodiments, selection of an element of the display area 210 via a touchscreen or computer mouse pointer 220 results in the display of additional information about that element (e.g., a pop-up window) and/or an ability to change or adjust values associated with that element.
As can be seen from the cited references, and GUI that comprises the recited pop-up window is well-known and conventional and not a technical improvement.
Further, similar to the analysis with respect to step 2A prong 2 recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished cannot provide an inventive concept under step 2B of the eligibility analysis. As such. The broadly recited machine learning does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
When viewing the generic display and data gathering in combination with the generic computer and broadly recited machine learning does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept.
Further Claims 2-7, 10 further limit the mental processes and abstract business processes rejected in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 11-10, 21 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. The presentment of claims 1-7, 10 otherwise styled as a method, computer program product or system, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. As such, claims 11-18, 21 are also rejected.
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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625