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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks 14-15, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of claims 1 and 11 are withdrawn.
Applicant argues,
The cited references do not appear to disclose or suggest the copula sample blocks of claim 1. The Office action cites the first and second copula function portions disclosed in Para. [0008] of Macaro as allegedly disclosing the copula sample blocks. However, the copula function portions disclosed by Macaro are divisions of a copula function rather than being sets of copula sample values. Applicant has amended claim 1 to further recite "wherein each of the copula sample blocks includes two or more of the sampled copula values" in order to clarify the difference between the copula sample blocks and the copula function portions.
Remarks 14.
Examiner agrees, the 103 rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 do not properly consider each of the claims as a whole and therefore do not satisfy the requirements for supporting a subject matter eligibility rejection (see MPEP 2106.07).” Remarks 16. If applicant can point to a part of the claim that needs more consideration, Examiner could approach this argument. As the argument stands right now, Examiner doesn’t understand what is missing from the analysis.
Applicant argues,
the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of the computing device itself. As disclosed, for example, in Paras. [0018] and [0035], small changes to the inputs of the conventional version of the Iman-Conover method may result in large changes to the outputs. Accordingly, the set of joint distribution sample vectors may have to be entirely recomputed when small changes are made to the inputs of the Iman-Conover method. In contrast, as disclosed at least in Paras. [0047], [0048], and [0074], the steps recited in the independent claims may allow the one or more processing devices to resample the copula sample values without having to recompute all joint distribution sample vectors. The joint distribution sample vectors are instead recomputed within a marginal sample block. The one or more processing devices therefore save the time and processing that would otherwise be associated with recomputing all the joint distribution sample vectors.
Remarks 6.
In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). The claims, right now, don’t purport to improve the functioning of a computer itself. Accepting Applicant’s argument that less computation is needed to perform this Iman-Conover method doesn’t improve the computer, it improves the Iman-Conover method. The computer is being used, as a computer, to compute the improved Iman-Conover method. This doesn’t integrate the improved Iman-Conover method into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are not directed to statutory subject matter, because they fail step 2A prong two of the 101 analysis.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental concept and mathematical equation without significantly more. The claims recite sampling data, manipulating data, sorting data, estimating minimum values and assigning ranks and values. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because gathering and displaying data is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the "computing system" and processors are generic computer parts.
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 Austin Hicks whose telephone number is (571)270-3377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-4 PST.
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, Mariela Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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.
/AUSTIN HICKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142