DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is responsive to application 17/785,409 as submitted on 15 June 2022.
Claim status is currently pending and under examination for claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 17, 21, 31, and 66-69 of which independent claim is 1.
Election/Restrictions
In the reply filed on August 20 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 17, 21, 31, and 66-69. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 70-72 and 74 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the one-dimensional clustering” in lines 1-2. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation, therefore the claim is rendered indefinite.
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 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 17, 21, 31, and 66-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, independent claim 1, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the following limitations that are abstract ideas:
and updating, with the prediction model, the initial score of the each candidate feature into an updated score; (mental process)
sorting, based on the updated score, the candidate features to create an updated candidate-feature ranking; (mental process)
The “updating” step involves calculating a new score which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of updating an initial score at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “updating” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “sorting” step involves organizing features based on their scores which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of sorting candidate features at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “sorting” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Therefore, independent claim 1 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements, but these additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
receiving a target feature and an initial bucket ranking of initial buckets that partition an initial candidate-feature ranking of candidate features, each of the candidate features having an initial score, the candidate features of the initial candidate-feature ranking being ranked based on the initial score; (MPEP § 2106.05(g) necessary data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception)
for each initial bucket of the initial bucket ranking: training a prediction model with (i) feature data associated with each candidate feature of the each initial bucket and (ii) target data associated with the target feature; (MPEP § 2106.05(f) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or generally links exception to a technological environment)
and updating, with the prediction model, the initial score of the each candidate feature into an updated score; (MPEP § 2106.05(f) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or generally links exception to a technological environment)
and outputting one or more highest-ranked candidate features of the updated candidate-feature ranking (MPEP § 2106.05(f) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or generally links exception to a technological environment)
The “receiving” step amounts to mere data gathering and is recited at a high level of generality, thus adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g). Under MPEP § 2106.05(d), such additional elements have been found by the courts to not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The “training” step is recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The “updating” step requires a “prediction model” to update the initial scores of each candidate feature. The prediction model is used to apply the recited judicial exception without placing any limitation on how the prediction model operates. The limitation amounts to mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The “outputting” step is recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the above limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient for the claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In regards to the “receiving” step, this step adds insignificant extra-solution activity. An extra-solution activity is a well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) activity per MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “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.” The “receiving” step does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
In regards to the “prediction model” in the “updating” step, the limitations are recited so generically such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
In regards to the “training” and “outputting” steps, the limitations are recited so generically such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 8, 10, 11, 17, 21, 31, and 66-69
The remaining dependent claims being rejected do not recite additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Dependent claim 2 recites the following limitations:
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, dependent claim 2, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the following limitations that are abstract ideas:
partitioning, based on the updated score, the updated candidate-feature ranking into an updated bucket ranking of updated buckets; (mental process)
The “partitioning” step involves organizing features into subsets based on their updated ranking which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of partitioning an updated candidate-feature ranking into updated buckets at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “partitioning” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Therefore, dependent claim 2 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements, but these additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the outputting includes outputting one or more highest-ranked updated buckets of the updated bucket ranking (MPEP § 2106.05(f) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or generally links exception to a technological environment)
The “outputting” step is recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the above limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient for the claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In regards to the “outputting” step, the limitations are recited so generically such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the following limitations:
iterating the training, updating, sorting, and partitioning over a plurality of iterations;
and using the updated bucket ranking created during one of the plurality of iterations as the initial bucket ranking for a succeeding one of the plurality of iterations;
wherein the outputting includes outputting one or more highest-ranked updated buckets of a last one of the plurality of iterations
The “iterating” step is recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. They can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). The step does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
The “using” and “outputting” steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. They can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). The steps do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 4 recites the following limitations:
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, dependent claim 4, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the following limitations that are abstract ideas:
calculating, based on the updated bucket ranking and initial bucket ranking, a convergence score; (mental process and math)
The “calculating” step involves using bucket rankings to determine a convergence score, which represents a mathematical calculation and amounts to no more than evaluations, observations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of calculating a convergence score at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “calculating” step is considered to be an abstract idea of a mathematical concept, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I), and mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Therefore, dependent claim 4 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements, but these additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the iterating is based on the convergence score (MPEP § 2106.05(f) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or generally links exception to a technological environment)
The “wherein the iterating …” step is recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the above limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient for the claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In regards to the “wherein the iterating …” step and the remaining additional elements, the limitations are recited so generically such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites the further limitation “wherein the partitioning includes one-dimensional clustering.” The step is recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. They can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). The step does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 6 recites the following limitations:
wherein the one-dimensional clustering includes head-tail breaking the updated candidate-feature ranking into a head subset and a tail subset, the tail subset being one of the updated buckets (mental process)
and iteratively head-tail breaking the head subset into two or more of the updated buckets (mental process)
The “head-tail breaking the updated candidate-feature ranking …” step involves organizing an updated ranking into subsets which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of head-tail breaking an updated candidate-feature ranking at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “iteratively head-tail breaking …” step involves splitting a head subset into smaller subsets which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of iteratively head-tail breaking a head subset at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This claim does not recite any non-abstract additional elements.
Dependent claim 8 recites the following limitations:
wherein the one-dimensional clustering includes head-tail breaking the updated candidate-feature ranking into a head subset and a tail subset, the tail subset being one of the updated buckets (mental process)
and wherein the head-tail breaking includes: calculating an arithmetic mean of the updated scores; (mental process and math)
inserting, to the head subset, each candidate feature whose updated score is greater than the arithmetic mean; (mental process)
and inserting, to the tail subset, each candidate feature whose updated score is less than the arithmetic mean (mental process)
The “head-tail breaking the updated candidate-feature ranking …” step involves organizing an updated ranking into subsets which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of head-tail breaking an updated candidate-feature ranking at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “calculating” step involves determining and calculating an arithmetic mean which represents a mathematical calculation and amounts to no more than evaluations, observations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of calculating an arithmetic mean at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “calculating” step is considered to be an abstract idea of a mathematical concept, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I), and mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “inserting, to the head subset … ” step involves determining which candidate feature belongs to the head subset based on an arithmetic mean which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “inserting, to the tail subset …” step involves determining which candidate feature belongs to the tail subset based on an arithmetic mean which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This claim does not recite any non-abstract additional elements.
Dependent claim 10 recites the following limitations:
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, dependent claim 10, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the following limitations that are abstract ideas:
removing one or more lowest-ranked updated buckets of the updated bucket ranking to create a truncated bucket ranking: (mental process)
calculating, based on the initial bucket ranking and the updated bucket ranking, a rank correlation score; (mental process and math)
The “removing” step involves re-ranking subsets by excluding the lowest ranked subsets which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of removing the lowest-ranked updated bucket at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “removing” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “calculating” step involves using bucket rankings to determine and calculate a rank correlation score which represents a mathematical calculation and amounts to no more than evaluations, observations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of calculating a rank correlation score at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “calculating” step is considered to be an abstract idea of a mathematical concept, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I), and mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Therefore, dependent claim 10 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements, but these additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the removing occurs if the rank correlation score exceeds a threshold (MPEP § 2106.05(f) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or generally links exception to a technological environment)
The “wherein the removing …” step is recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the above limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient for the claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In regards to the “wherein the removing …” step, the limitations are recited so generically such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, dependent claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 11 recites the following limitations:
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, dependent claim 11, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the following limitations that are abstract ideas:
removing one or more lowest-ranked updated buckets of the updated bucket ranking to create a truncated bucket ranking: (mental process)
calculating, based on the initial bucket ranking and the updated bucket ranking, a rank correlation score; (mental process and math)
and adding the rank correlation score to a history of rank correlation scores; (mental process)
The “removing” step involves re-ranking subsets by excluding the lowest ranked subsets which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of removing the lowest-ranked updated bucket at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “removing” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “calculating” step involves using bucket rankings to determine and calculate a rank correlation score which represents a mathematical calculation and amounts to no more than evaluations, observations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of calculating a rank correlation score at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “calculating” step is considered to be an abstract idea of a mathematical concept, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I), and mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “adding” step involves creating a list of rank correlations scores previously calculated which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of adding a rank correlation score at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “adding” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Therefore, dependent claim 11 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements, but these additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the removing occurs if a most-recent portion of the history exhibits a plateau (MPEP § 2106.05(f) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or generally links exception to a technological environment)
The “wherein the removing …” step is recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the above limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient for the claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In regards to the “wherein the removing …” step, the limitations are recited so generically such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, dependent claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 17 recites the following limitations:
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, dependent claim 17, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the following limitations that are abstract ideas:
partitioning, based on the initial score, the initial candidate-feature ranking into the initial bucking ranking, (mental process)
the feature-selection method further comprising removing one or more lowest-ranked candidate features from the updated candidate-feature ranking to create a truncated candidate-feature ranking, (mental process)
and calculating, based on the initial candidate-feature ranking and the updated candidate-feature ranking, a rank correlation score, (mental process and math)
The “partitioning” step involves organizing features into subsets based on an initial ranking which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of partitioning an initial candidate-feature ranking into initial buckets at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “partitioning” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “removing” step involves re-ranking candidate-features by excluding the lowest ranked features which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of removing lowest-ranked candidate features at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “removing” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “calculating” step involves using candidate-feature rankings to determine and calculate a rank correlation score which represents a mathematical calculation and amounts to no more than evaluations, observations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of calculating a rank correlation score at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “calculating” step is considered to be an abstract idea of a mathematical concept, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I), and mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Therefore, dependent claim 17 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements, but these additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the removing occurs if the rank correlation score exceeds a threshold (MPEP § 2106.05(f) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or generally links exception to a technological environment)
The “wherein the removing …” step is recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the above limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient for the claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In regards to the “wherein the removing …” step, the limitations are recited so generically such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, dependent claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 21 recites the following limitations:
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, dependent claim 21, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the following limitations that are abstract ideas:
randomizing the test data to create randomized test data; (mental process)
comparing the first performance measure and the second performance measure to obtain a score update for the each candidate feature; (mental process)
and adding the score update to the initial score of the each candidate feature (mental process and math)
The “randomizing” step involves replacing data points in a data set with random values which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of randomizing the test data at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “randomizing” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “comparing” step involves determining score updates based on evaluating performance measures which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of comparing performance measures at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “comparing” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “adding” step involves updating an initial score by adding scores which represents a mathematical calculation and amounts to no more than evaluations, observations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of adding a score update at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “adding” step is considered to be an abstract idea of a mathematical concept, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I), and mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Therefore, dependent claim 21 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements, but these additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the updating includes: obtaining from the trained prediction model a first performance measure using test data associated with the each candidate feature; (MPEP § 2106.05(f) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or generally links exception to a technological environment)
obtaining a second performance measure by running the trained prediction model with (i) the randomized test data, and (ii) test data associated with all other candidate features of the each initial bucket; (MPEP § 2106.05(f) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or generally links exception to a technological environment)
The “obtaining from the trained prediction model …” step is recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The “obtaining a second performance measure …” step is recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the above limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient for the claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In regards to the “obtaining from the trained prediction model …” and “obtaining a second performance measure …” steps, the limitations are recited so generically such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, dependent claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 31 recites the following limitations:
creating the initial bucket ranking by: selecting the candidate features; (mental process)
assigning a value to the initial score of each of the candidate features; (mental process)
sorting, based on the initial score, the candidate features to create the initial candidate-feature ranking; (mental process)
and partitioning the initial candidate-feature ranking into the initial buckets (mental process)
The “selecting” step involves identifying candidate features to group into ranked subsets which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of selecting candidate features at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “selecting” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “assigning” step involves determining an initial score for each candidate feature which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of assigning a value to an initial score of each candidate feature at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “assigning” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “sorting” step involves arranging candidate features in order based on their initial scores which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of sorting candidate features at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “sorting” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “partitioning” step involves creating subsets from ranked candidate features which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of partitioning an initial candidate-feature ranking at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “partitioning” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This claim does not recite any non-abstract additional elements.
Dependent claim 66 recites the following limitations:
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, dependent claim 66, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the following limitations that are abstract ideas:
for each target feature of the set of target features: performing the feature-selection method of claim 1 with the each target feature and the set of candidate features to generate (i) a single-target ranking of the candidate features and (ii) a final candidate score for each of the candidate features in the single-target ranking; (mental process)
and for each candidate feature of the set of candidate features: calculating, based on the target-feature weights and the final candidate score of the each candidate feature in each single-target ranking, a combined score; (mental process and math)
ranking, based on the combined score, the candidate features into a combined ranking; (mental process)
selecting a plurality of top-ranked candidate features from the combined ranking; (mental process)
for each target of the plurality of targets: generating training data from the time series of the each target and the time series of each of the highest-ranking candidate features; (mental process)
The “generate” step involves ordering candidate features based on a single target feature and determining a final score for each candidate feature which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of generating a single-target ranking and a final candidate score at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “generate” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “calculating” step involves determining and calculating a score using target-feature weights and final candidate scores, which represents a mathematical calculation and amounts to no more than evaluations, observations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of calculating a combined score at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “calculating” step is considered to be an abstract idea of a mathematical concept, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I), and mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “ranking” step involves ordering candidate-features based on combined scores which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of ranking candidate features at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “ranking” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “selecting” step involves identifying high-ranking candidate features which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of selecting a plurality of top-ranked candidate features at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the “selecting” step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “generating training data” step involves creating a set of data samples based on time series which amounts to no more than observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). The claim recites the step of generating training data at a high degree of generality, thus the step is not required to have any specific level of complexity that would preclude the step from being mental processes. Therefore, the step is considered to be mental processes, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Therefore, dependent claim 66 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements, but these additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
receiving a set of candidate features, a set of target features, and target-feature weights corresponding to the target features, each of the candidate features and target features comprising a time series; (MPEP § 2106.05(g) necessary data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception)
and training the multivariate prediction model with the training data (MPEP § 2106.05(f) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or generally links exception to a technological environment)
The “receiving” step amounts to mere data gathering and is recited at a high level of generality, thus adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g). Under MPEP § 2106.05(d), such additional elements have been found by the courts to not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The “training” step is recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the above limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient for the claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In regards to the “receiving” step, this step adds insignificant extra-solution activity. An extra-solution activity is a well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) activity per MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II