Detailed Action:
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 are presented.0
Response to Remarks:
Regarding 101:
The essence of this invention is the approach to data analytics (specifically in the field of marketing budget allocation). The specification details conventional techniques of data analytics, and the problems they point out revolve around how they still require some manual feedback or intervention (i.e., not completely automated), the validation of the model can take a long time, etc. But these things all speak to the inherent advantage to automating something. Years ago this was the analog- vs computer-implemented argument. With the ubiquity of AI/ML, the paradigm has shifted to AI/ML- vs traditional computer-implemented. We can’t view simply the application of AI/ML to data processing as a technical solution, because the AI/ML is doing what it’s supposed to do, process data faster. The claimed inventions need to either show an improvement to the AI itself, or use the AI beyond just a tool or its expected operation (i.e., we can’t call it “apply it”) thereby achieving another technical solution. I would also add the specification seems to make conclusory statements re purported advantages (e.g., see [0023], “Advantageously, the marketing budget allocation engine provides scalability, transparency, and democratization of a data analytics system.”), but there’s no clear nexus from these statements to the claims themselves, not to mention what this even means.
All that aside, and looking to the claims, the trained model has clearly been trained outside the scope of the claim. So while the claim details specifically what the model can output, the claim is not concerned with how the model is trained (other than the data used). The newly amended limitation re the “non-convex optimization” would not make the claim eligible. In light of [0029] of the spec, applicant purports a “clear advantage of this method compared to classical optimization methods (e.g., Liner Programming or Heuristics) is that Mixed Integer Programming can handle non-convex problems and still provide guarantees of optimality.” This speaks again to just doing the data analytics differently by using AI as a tool.
Applicant’s solution is to employ AI/ML which finds the global optimization minimum. But even with this implementation the claim reads very high-level (i.e., analyzing a data set with a trained model to spit out and optimization output, with not much detail on what’s happening inside the AI). And again, this is what AI/ML is designed to handle, and so the claim as-a-whole is using AI as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The other elements of the claim re the UI, while interactive due to the toggling functionality, is just displaying different output of data so that doesn’t help with eligibility either.
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101:
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1, 8, and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.
Part I. 2A-prong one (Identify the Abstract Ideas)
The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.
Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The above claim falls within a mental process and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.)
Part II. 2A-prong two (additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application)
Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea. Such as, “…processor…marketing budget allocation engine…user interface…”
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) as well-understood, routine, conventional. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
As a result, Examiner asserts that claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, and 17-19 are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part III. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include any limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, alone. Claims 1, 8, and 15 do include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include, “…processor…graphical user interface…marketing budget allocation engine…” these amounts to generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and a high level of generality.
In addition, Fig. 1-2 of the Applicant’s specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the system. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, Examiner notes that the additional limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
Claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, and 17-19 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
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, Rob Wu can be reached at 571.272.6045. 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623