DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE filed 12 February 2026.
Claims 1–20 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent.
Claims 1–20 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12 February 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under step 2A, prong one, because they do not “set forth” or “describe” a mental process (remarks, pp. 11–12). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite limitations of applying graph theory concepts (i.e., the determination of the intervention set, and the determination that the causal graph is valid) that are observations, evaluations, or judgments (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Furthermore, the limitations are practically performed in the mind, or using pen and paper.
Applicant further argues that the claims are eligible under step 2A, prong two, because they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer (remarks, pp. 12–14). However, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)). In this case, the alleged improvement comes from limitations that are mental process steps (e.g., determining the intervention set using the Markov equivalence class, etc.) and therefore cannot provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology.
Applicant further argues that the claims are eligible under step 2B, because they provide significantly more than the abstract idea (remarks, pp. 14–16). The analysis under step 2B relates to “additional elements” beyond the abstract idea; therefore, elements such as determining the intervention set, which are mental process steps and therefore part of the abstract idea themselves, cannot provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, or conventional activities, such as applying the abstract idea on a generic computer (the “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “memory device”, “processor”, etc.) or receiving data/selecting a particular type of data (e.g., receiving the causal graph having directed edges corresponding to a dataset).
Claim Rejections—35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
Step 1: The claim recites [a] non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is a manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: The limitations of determining an intervention set using the causal graph, by adding, to the intervention set, one or more nodes from the Markov equivalence class based on one or more induced subgraphs of nodes and directed edges generated from the causal graph and based on at least one sink node determined from the nodes of the one or more induced subgraphs and determining that the causal graph is valid by determining that the set of directed edges validly reflect the causal relationships of the underlying dataset using a plurality of interventions on the one or more nodes of the intervention set, under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions that can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a person could apply graph theory using their mind or with pen and paper, in order to generate induced subgraphs and determine sink nodes and interventions therefrom. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional elements of [a] non-transitory computer-readable medium and at least one processor amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element of receiving a causal graph to be validated and a Markov equivalence class that corresponds to the causal graph is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements of [a] non-transitory computer-readable medium and at least one processor amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element of receiving a causal graph to be validated and a Markov equivalence class that corresponds to the causal graph, the causal graph having a set of directed edges corresponding to causal relationships of an underlying dataset is insignificant extra-solution activity, namely selecting a particular type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, this is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving and/or transmitting data; see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, the additional elements do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitations of determining orientations for edges of the Markov equivalence class using the plurality of interventions on the one or more nodes of the intervention set and determining that orientations of edges of the causal graph correspond to the orientations for the edges of the Markov equivalence class, under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites further steps of the mental process.
Regarding dependent claim 3, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitation of determining a chain component of the Markov equivalence class, wherein determining the intervention set comprises determining the intervention set using the chain component, under its broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites further steps of the mental process.
Regarding dependent claim 4, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitation of determining the chain component of the Markov equivalence class comprises determining a chordal chain component of the Markov equivalence class, under its broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be practically performed in the human mind.
Regarding dependent claim 5, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitation of generating an induced subgraph from the causal graph, the induced subgraph comprising a subset of nodes and a subset of directed edges of the causal graph that correspond to the chain component of the Markov equivalence class, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be practically performed in the human mind.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitations of determining a maximal clique for the induced subgraph generated from the causal graph, determining a sink node from that maximal clique of the induced subgraph, and adding, to the intervention set, one or more nodes of the Markov equivalence class that corresponds to the induced subgraph while omitting nodes of the Markov equivalence class that correspond to the sink node, under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions that can be practically performed in the human mind.
Regarding dependent claim 7, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitations of determining an orientation of one or more edges of the Markov equivalence class that are incident on a node of the intervention set via an intervention of the node and determining that the causal graph is valid using the orientation of the one or more edges of the Markov equivalence class, under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions that can be practically performed in the human mind.
Regarding dependent claim 8, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitation of determining an orientation of one or more additional edges of the Markov equivalence class using one or more Meek rules, wherein determining that the causal graph is valid comprises determining that the causal graph is valid using the orientation of the one or more additional edges of the Markov equivalence class, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be practically performed in the human mind.
Regarding dependent claim 9, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The additional element of receiving a set of analytics data that corresponds to the causal graph is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, this is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving and/or transmitting data; see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation of determining the Markov equivalence class using the set of analytics data, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites further steps of the mental process.
Regarding independent claim 10, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
Step 1: The claim recites [a] system comprising: at least one memory device […] and at least one processor, which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: The limitations of determining a set of chain components of the Markov equivalence class, generating, from the causal graph, a set of induced subgraphs of nodes and directed edges using the set of chain components of the Markov equivalence class, determining sink nodes from the set of induced subgraphs, adding, to the intervention set, one or more nodes of the Markov equivalence class that correspond to the set of induced subgraphs while omitting at least one node of the Markov equivalence class that correspond to the sink nodes, and determine whether the causal graph is valid by determining whether the set of directed edges validly reflect the causal relationships of the underlying dataset using a plurality of interventions on the one or more nodes of the intervention set, under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions that can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a person could apply graph theory using their mind or with pen and paper, in order to generate induced subgraphs and determine sink nodes and interventions therefrom. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional elements of at least one memory device comprising a causal graph and at least one processor amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements, taken individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements of at least one memory device comprising a causal graph and at least one processor amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The causal graph having a set of directed edges corresponding to causal relationships of an underlying dataset is insignificant extra-solution activity, namely selecting a particular type of data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements, taken individually or in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 11, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitation of determine whether the causal graph is valid using the plurality of interventions by determining that the causal graph is invalid based on determining, via an intervention, that an orientation of an edge of the Markov equivalence class is different than an orientation of a corresponding edge of the causal graph, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites further steps of the mental process.
Regarding dependent claim 12, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitation of generate an indication that the causal graph is invalid in response to determining that the causal graph is invalid, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites further steps of the mental process. The additional element of providing the indication that the causal graph is invalid to a client device that submitted the causal graph amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea
Regarding dependent claim 13, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitation of determine whether the causal graph is valid using the plurality of interventions on the nodes of the intervention set by determining whether the causal graph is valid using one or more Meek rules applied to the Markov equivalence class after at least one intervention of the plurality of interventions, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites further steps of the mental process.
Regarding dependent claim 14, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitations of determining a set of maximal cliques for the set of induced subgraphs and determining one or more sink nodes from the set of maximal cliques, under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites further steps of the mental process.
Regarding dependent claim 15, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitation of determine whether the causal graph is valid using the plurality of interventions on the one or more nodes of the intervention set by determining whether the Markov equivalence class includes an undirected edge after orienting edges of the Markov equivalence class via the plurality of interventions on the nodes of the intervention set, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites further steps of the mental process.
Regarding dependent claim 16, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitation of determine whether the causal graph is valid using the plurality of interventions on the one or more nodes of the intervention set by determining that the causal graph is invalid based on determining that the Markov equivalence class includes at least one undirected edge after orienting edges of the Markov equivalence class via the plurality of interventions, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites further steps of the mental process.
Regarding dependent claim 17, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitations of determining the set of chain components of the Markov equivalence class comprises determining a set of chordal chain components of the Markov equivalence class and generating the set of induced subgraphs from the causal graph using the set of chain components comprises generating the set of induced subgraphs from the causal graph using the set of chordal chain components, under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites further steps of the mental process.
Regarding independent claim 18, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
Step 1: The claim recites [a] computer-implemented method, which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: The limitations of performing a step for verifying that the causal graph corresponds to the set of analytics data using the Markov equivalence class and generating a validation indication for the causal graph indicating that directed edges of the causal graph validly reflect causal relationships of the set of analytics data based on verifying that the causal graph corresponds to the set of analytics data, under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions that can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a person could apply graph theory using their mind or with pen and paper, in order to generate induced subgraphs and determine sink nodes and interventions therefrom. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional element of receiving a causal graph associated with a set of analytics data and a Markov equivalence class that corresponds to the causal graph is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional element does not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional element of receiving a causal graph associated with a set of analytics data and a Markov equivalence class that corresponds to the causal graph is insignificant extra-solution activity, namely selecting a particular type of data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, this is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving and/or transmitting data; see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, the additional element does not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 19, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The limitation of determining the Markov equivalence class from the set of analytics data using a causal structure learning algorithm, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites further steps of the mental process.
Regarding dependent claim 20, the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:
The additional element of providing the validation indication for display on a client device that submitted the causal graph amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler Schallhorn whose telephone number is 571-270-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. (ET).
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571-272-4241. 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 the USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Tyler Schallhorn/Examiner, Art Unit 2144
/TAMARA T KYLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights