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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on October 17, 2025, wherein claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-20 are currently pending. Claims 4-7 and 11-14 seems to be cancelled (but not properly shown in the amended claim set).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 (including cancelled claims not shown in the claim listing) are objected to because of the following informalities: In the amended claims set filed by Applicant on 10/17/2025, Applicant did not follow the requirements of MPEP 714 (37 CFR 1.121) – which requires:
“Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).”
In the current application, Applicant did not clearly show the canceled claims with (Canceled) identifier and simply skipped mentioning of the canceled claims in the amendment claim listing filed on 10/17/2025. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are geared towards the newly amended claims. The newly amended claims are considered for the first time in the rejection below.
35 USC §101 discussion:
The newly amended claims and the newly added claims further organize information and models (which are mathematical concepts) and further structure the information. Applicant’s concept is geared to determining Consumer Surplus Factor and pricing of the product of the brand (see, for example, Applicant’s specification pages 5-8 discussing summary of invention) which is gap between the value of a product of a brand perceived by consumer and the price charged by that brand for that particular product). The steps used to achieve this are all heavily mathematical in nature. The rest of the claimed steps are mathematical in nature geared towards optimization of business/retail practices (pricing, surplus, etc.,). Applicant states the abstract steps reduce computational burden, however this is falls under improving the abstract idea and not improving or effecting technology, technological environment, or technical elements. The technical elements in the claims are generic/general-purpose and are, for example, system, data processor, memories (memory devices), devices, processors databases, etc., (in independent claim 1 with its dependents 2-3, 15-17); processors, memories (memory devices), devices, known database elements, etc., (in independent claim 8 with its dependents 9-10, 18-20). These technical elements are general-purpose/generic computer/computing elements/components and are just used in an “apply it” fashion. It is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes. The technical elements used are extra-solution/post-solution activities and the core claimed concepts are directed abstract ideas of organizing human activities (fundamental economic principles or practices (sales and pricing in retail) and commercial interaction (customer behavior and relationships)) and mathematical concepts (further comparing data and modifying data/information for more mathematical analysis and further graph manipulations using the mathematical concepts). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). Applicant’s claims show no technical improvement to computer functionality (or a technical environment) and the courts have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. See Ancora Techs. Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1347–49 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
As stated before, Applicant’s claims as a whole are geared towards determining consumer surplus factor (gap between value of a product of a brand perceived by the consumer and the price charged by that brand for the particular product) using mathematical techniques and concepts (analysis that include pricing and predictive analysis). Applicant’s claimed concepts and steps are towards receiving/obtaining information/ data (abstract type data – e.g. sales data etc., (smoothening is mathematical in estimations – see Applicant’s specification)), manipulation and analysis of this obtained information (organizing information and heavily using mathematical techniques/concepts (regularizing, modeling, statistical analysis, predicting, etc.,)), and providing the resulting information/data for further analysis and decision-making. The claims are directed to organizing human activities (fundamental economic principles or practices (sales and pricing in retail) and commercial interaction (customer behavior and relationships)); and further comparing data and modifying data/information for more mathematical analysis and further graph manipulations using the mathematical concepts. The system, processor, computers, etc., are all extra-solution/post-solution activities as they are stated in an “apply it” fashion and are all generic/general-purpose computers and computing components. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving/obtaining information/data (information itself is abstract in nature – sales, criteria, prices, etc.,), data/information analysis and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data (heavily using mathematical concepts), and providing/displaying this determined data (also for decision -making). The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further abstract data/information to use is other steps. The abstract idea presented in the independent and dependent claims is an abstract concept the abstraction further similar to Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, (Fed Cir. May 17, 2016), OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015), Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) all of whose claims were held ineligible. As stated in the previous rejection, if a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as 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 scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally (under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d))), (as stated in the rejection below and in the previous Office action) the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The recitation of, for example, system, data processor, memories (memory devices), devices, processors databases, etc., (in independent claim 1 with its dependents 2-3, 15-17); processors, memories (memory devices), devices, known database elements, etc., (in independent claim 8 with its dependents 9-10, 18-20), are just used in an “apply it” fashion as extra-solution/post-solution activity. Applicant’s claims show no technical improvement to computer functionality and the courts have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. See Ancora Techs. Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1347–49 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The CAFC has consistently stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process (in this case organizing human activities and mathematical concepts) by invoking a computer merely as a tool. For example, in Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, the CAFC held that claims to a method of providing out-of-region access to regional broadcasts were directed to an abstract idea. 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The CAFC determined the claims were not a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality because they simply used cellular telephones “as tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea.” Id. at 1262; see also In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding ineligible claims reciting concrete physical components merely as “a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner”).
It should be noted that a “claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” MPEP 2106.04(d). The U.S. Supreme Court has described “the concern that drives this exclusionary principle [i.e., the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent eligible subject matter] as one of pre-emption.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216. However, characterizing preemption as a driving concern for patent eligibility is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test for patent eligibility. As the courts have explained, “[t]he Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability,” and “[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 216). And, although “preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id. Moreover, “[w]here a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the [Alice/Mayo] framework . . ., preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.; see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert, denied, 136 S. Ct. 701 (2015)(“[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract.”). Further, Appellant’s claims are different from those claims that the Courts have found to be patent eligible by virtue of reciting technological improvements to a computer system. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1249, 1257 (holding that claims reciting computer processor for serving “composite web page” were patent eligible because “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that claims directed to “an improved computer memory system” having many benefits were patent eligible). In McRO1, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim, when considered as a whole, was directed to a “technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques” through the “use [of] limited rules . . . specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316 (McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the claimed rules allowed computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators; and the rules were limiting because they defined morph weight sets as a function of phoneme sub-sequences. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. The present situation is not like the one in McRO where computers had been unable to make certain subjective determinations, e.g., regarding morph weight and phoneme timings, which could only be made prior to the claimed invention by human animators. The Background section of one of the patents at issue in McRO, Rosenfeld (US Patent 6,307,576 B1; issued Oct. 23, 2001), includes a description of the admitted prior art method and the shortcomings associated with that prior method. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1303-06. There is no comparable discussion in Appellant’s Specification or elsewhere of record. Further, as the Federal Circuit has explained, a “claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even assuming the technique claimed was “[groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” that would not be enough for the claimed abstract idea to be patent eligible. See Ass ’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013).
As shown above, the claims utilize general-purpose/generic computers/processors and other generic computing components/devices/etc., (for example, system, data processor, memories (memory devices), devices, processors databases, etc., (in independent claim 1 with its dependents 2-3, 15-17); processors, memories (memory devices), devices, known database elements, etc., (in independent claim 8 with its dependents 9-10, 18-20)) without any improvement to the functioning of the computers and computing components/devices themselves. see also Enflsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea ... the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.”). The claims do not recite an additional element or elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 (“In holding that the process was patent ineligible, we rejected the argument that ‘implement[ing] a principle in some specific fashion’ will ‘automatically fal[l] within the patentable subject matter of § 101.”’ (Alterations in original) (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978))).
Against this background, Applicant’s claims are not integrated into a practical application and are not patent eligible as they remain an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, Section 111(A)(2) (Prong Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application).
Furthermore, under step 2B, the recitations of the core inventive steps amount to little more than reciting that the computer system (general-purpose/generic computers/processors and other generic computing components/devices/etc., - shown above) applies the abstract idea. The added elements and activities to the abstract idea, for example, are “system, data processor, memories (memory devices), devices, processors databases, etc., (in independent claim 1 with its dependents 2-3, 15-17); processors, memories (memory devices), devices, known database elements, etc., (in independent claim 8 with its dependents 9-10, 18-20).” These activities and additional elements as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant's application and/or the specification of the below cited art and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. As stated in the most recent guidelines provided by the office, “Simply appending well-understood routines and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specifies a high level of generality…” (MPEP 2106.05 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). The elements in combination (or alone) do not provide any material drawn to something significantly more than the claimed method of organizing these known activities. The claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Applicant is directed to the following references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) MPEP 2106.05 and also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57, Gottschalk v. Benson. Applicant’s claims are clearly focused on the combination of the above stated abstract-idea processes (as described under Prong 1 and Step 2A) and not any particular assuredly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea and do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The core limitations require no more than a generic/general-purpose computers and computing components (for example, system, data processor, memories (memory devices), devices, processors databases, etc., (in independent claim 1 with its dependents 2-3, 15-17); processors, memories (memory devices), devices, known database elements, etc., (in independent claim 8 with its dependents 9-10, 18-20)) to perform generic computer functions. see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. 754 F.3d 1350, 1355 (MPEP 2106.05 and also the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019). It should be noted the limitations of the current claims are performed by the generically recited computers and computing components/devices/etc., (as discussed above – (for example, system, data processor, memories (memory devices), devices, processors databases, etc., (in independent claim 1 with its dependents 2-3, 15-17); processors, memories (memory devices), devices, known database elements, etc., (in independent claim 8 with its dependents 9-10, 18-20))) and, without more, this is insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
As stated in the previous Office action (rejection), for the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, pages 8, 10, 14-16, 33 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic/general-purpose computer and/or computing/computer components (for example, system, data processor, memories (memory devices), devices, processors databases, etc., (in independent claim 1 with its dependents 2-3, 15-17); processors, memories (memory devices), devices, known database elements, etc., (in independent claim 8 with its dependents 9-10, 18-20)) to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (for example, system, data processor, memories (memory devices), devices, processors databases, etc., (in independent claim 1 with its dependents 2-3, 15-17); processors, memories (memory devices), devices, known database elements, etc., (in independent claim 8 with its dependents 9-10, 18-20)) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) MPEP 2106.05, and (3) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
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 1-3, 8-10, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note: The above §101 discussion and explanation in the “Response to Arguments” section is fully incorporated into this rejection.
(Under Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03)) The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as the claims are directed to a system (i.e. machine/product) (claims 1-3, 15-17) and method (i.e., process) (claims 8-10, 18-20).
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The claims recite receiving/obtaining information/data (information itself is abstract in nature – sales, criteria, prices, etc.,), data/information analysis and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data (heavily using mathematical concepts), and providing/displaying this determined data (also for decision -making). The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further abstract data/information to use is other steps. These claims are directed towards gathering/collecting data, using the data for analysis, and manipulating/refining/etc., the data to generate more data; and further geared towards mathematical relationships (as discussed in the claims and the specification).
The limitations of the independent claims (1 and 8) and dependent claims (2-3, 9-10, 15-17, 18-20), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (commercial interaction – marketing and sales activities with determining pricing) and mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as 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 scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic components (for example, system, data processor, memories (memory devices), devices, processors databases, etc., (in independent claim 1 with its dependents 2-3, 15-17); processors, memories (memory devices), devices, known database elements, etc., (in independent claim 8 with its dependents 9-10, 18-20)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The generic/general-purpose computing (for example, system, data processor, memories (memory devices), devices, processors databases, etc., (in independent claim 1 with its dependents 2-3, 15-17); processors, memories (memory devices), devices, known database elements, etc., (in independent claim 8 with its dependents 9-10, 18-20)) limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) using generic/general-purpose computer and computer components. It is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (organizing human activity (fundamental economic activities and commercial interaction – marketing and sales activities with determining pricing) and mathematical concepts) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes of organizing human activity (fundamental economic activities and commercial interaction – marketing and sales activities with determining pricing) and mathematical concepts involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite using known and/or generic computing devices and software. For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, pages 8, 10, 14-16, 33 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (for example, system, data processor, memories (memory devices), devices, processors databases, etc., (in independent claim 1 with its dependents 2-3, 15-17); processors, memories (memory devices), devices, known database elements, etc., (in independent claim 8 with its dependents 9-10, 18-20)) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims and dependent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc., does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims further state using obtained/received data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), data/information analysis and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data (heavily using mathematical concepts), and providing/displaying this determined data (also for decision-making). The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data. These claims are directed towards organizing human activity (commercial interaction – marketing and sales activities with determining pricing); and further geared towards mathematical relationships (as discussed in the claims and the specification). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic components (for example, system, data processor, memories (memory devices), devices, processors databases, etc., (in independent claim 1 with its dependents 2-3, 15-17); processors, memories (memory devices), devices, known database elements, etc., (in independent claim 8 with its dependents 9-10, 18-20)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components/devices/etc.,). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements (for example, system, data processor, memories (memory devices), devices, processors databases, etc., (in independent claim 1 with its dependents 2-3, 15-17); processors, memories (memory devices), devices, known database elements, etc., (in independent claim 8 with its dependents 9-10, 18-20)) either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself.
Prior art discussion – not rejected under prior art
The prior art of record most closely resembling Applicant’s claimed invention is Magids et al., (US 2008/0288331) and Teerilahti et al., (US 2010/0179861). However, neither Wang nor London individually nor in combination specifically disclose the independent claims’ (1 and 8) concept removing multicollinearity in the received data using one or more of regression and orthogonalization; create a super set of candidate models and one or more predictor variables, by predicting suitable form of the one or more predictor variables using one or more iterations, based on a predefined rule set, wherein creating the superset of at least plurality of models further comprises creating data frames of all combinations of predictor variables and wherein each combination is a dataset for the one or more iteration; regularize the superset using one or more regularization techniques to select one or more subsets of the candidate models and the one or more predictor variables…remove correlation between variables in the determined one or more models using Seemingly Unrelated Regression (a linear regression model that consists of several regression equations, each having its own dependent variable and potentially different sets of exogenous explanatory variables – see Spec. pg. 3) to create a final model; normalize impact over time of at least one feature on the determined one or more predictor variables to create a final one or more predictor variables (note that the concept is geared to determining Consumer Surplus Factor and pricing of the product of the brand (see, for example, Applicant’s specification pages 5-8 discussing summary of invention) which is gap between the value of a product of a brand perceived by consumer and the price charged by that brand for that particular product). Additionally note that although a specific portion is stated above that overcomes the prior art, it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that overcomes the prior art (no individual limitation is solely the reason for not rejecting under prior art as the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole — limitations coming together collectively to form the concept). The prior art of record does not teach or suggest Applicant’s current independent claims as a whole in its entirety.
As per the dependent claims, these claims depend on the not rejected independent claims above and incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Note that all the claims remain rejected under §101 above and therefore are not allowable as they are not subject matter eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the other pertinent art is as follows:
Brown (US 2002/0143608): Provides for adjusting a baseline by enabling a user to identify and assign values to a plurality of factors that would have caused the baseline to be different had the factors been included to generate the baseline. These factors include information about different types of consumer groups, for example consumers who are persuaded by price, brand and size, loyalty to specific brands and store chains, and product use. Moreover, baseline modifying factors can also include promotion information, for example price, product size/weight dimensions and product shelf life. A plurality of general modifying factors, for example population trends, short and long-term economic forecasts and the like also affect baselines and are also rated in order to contribute to a modified baseline. All of these baseline modifying factors are assessed and assigned values to contribute to modifying an existing baseline.
Sun et al., (US 2019/0080246): Discusses generating a category Bayesian hierarchical model. One method includes receiving a brand data set for each of a plurality of brands within a category, each brand data set comprising content input for a particular brand of the plurality of brands for a plurality of media channels at a plurality of times and a response for the particular brand of the plurality of brands at the plurality of times. The method includes determining a plurality of informative priors by generating a category Bayesian hierarchical model based on the plurality of brand data sets and a plurality of weak priors. The method further includes generating a brand Bayesian hierarchical model that models response for the particular brand for each of the plurality of media channels based on the brand data set for the particular brand and the plurality of informative priors.
Eder (US 2008/0140549): Discloses a system that continuously calculates and displays a comprehensive and accurate valuation for all the categories of value for a virtual organization that overcomes the limitations and drawbacks of the existing art that were described previously. Further discusses valuation and coordinated management of the different categories of value within an organization that consists of two or more commercial enterprises that have come together to form a "virtual value chain" for the purpose of delivering products or services to customers where a large portion of the organization's business value is associated with intangibles and real options.
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 GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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 on 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.
/GURKANWALJIT SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
