DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 3-10 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 6 were amended, claims 3-5 and 7-10 were canceled, and new claims 11-18 were added in the reply filed October 2, 2025. Claims 1, 6, and 11-18 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At Step 2A Prong One, Applicant argues that certain limitations ("receiving input data" or "selecting an optimal subset of models based on evaluation metrics"—see Remarks, 3) are not mathematical formulas. However, no explanation is given. These elements (e.g., inputted data, optimal models) are part of the overall mathematical formula that is eventually used in the convex optimization algorithm.
Applicant also argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. "The ordered sequence of steps here beginning with data smoothing, iterative dynamic linear modeling with regularization, generation of candidate models, SUR-based decorrelation, temporal normalization, orthogonalization, and convex optimization forms a specific computational pipeline that reduces the computational burden of predictive modeling, avoids brute-force evaluation of exponentially many models, and stabilizes execution of models on temporally unstable and multicollinear data." Remarks, 3. All of these highlighted elements are part of the abstract idea. "Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added). The only additional element beyond the abstract idea is a generic computer (data processing device/data processor, memory/memory device). With respect to a "specific computational pipeline," specificity is not the test for eligibility. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("a claim is not patent eligible merely because it applies an abstract idea in a narrow way"). Moreover, there is no support for the invention reducing a computational burden specific to a computer (see below).
"The memorandum also stresses that where eligibility is a close call, rejection should not be made unless it is more likely than not that the claim is ineligible. In this case, the presence of specific, non-generic technical steps compels a finding of eligibility under Prong Two." Remarks, 4. The case for ineligibility here is not a close call and the application appears ripe for appeal. The technical steps argued are purely abstract.
Applicant also argues that the claims recite an inventive concept. "The Examiner characterizes the claims as reciting known statistical techniques executed on a generic computer." Remarks, 5. This misrepresents the rejection. No finding was made that the statistical techniques were known, and no such finding is necessary to support the rejection. The issue is that the statistical techniques are purely mathematical in their nature.
"Conventional predictive modeling approaches rely on brute-force execution of exponentially many candidate models, which is computationally prohibitive when explanatory variables appear in multiple forms (Spec. ¶¶[0040–0045]). The present claims avoid this burden through an ordered sequence that first applies dimensionality reduction via regularization, then dynamically generates and filters candidate models under a rule set before execution. This selective approach prevents brute-force evaluation and directly addresses the exponential growth problem identified in the specification." The portions of the Specification cited do not appear to support this statement, nor does anything else of record. Arguments presented by Applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) ("The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.").
Applicant's further arguments regarding the SUR technique and convex optimization, even viewed in combination (see Remarks, 5-6), are unpersuasive for the same reasons already stated. These are part of the abstract idea, not additional elements. They describe mathematical manipulation of commercial data rather than any processing specific to computers. "The focus of the claims... is on selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis. That is all abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d, 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018). An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, '[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an inventive concept is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
"Under BASCOM v. AT&T Mobility, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), such a non-conventional arrangement of known tools that yields a technical improvement constitutes 'significantly more' than the abstract idea itself." Remarks, 6. BASCOM does not apply to a situation where the alleged unconventional arrangement is solely the abstract idea itself for reasons already stated. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the detailed description lacks antecedent basis for the claim terms "exhaustive evaluation," "reduced computational resource requirements, "brute-force model evaluation."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 recites that the model iteration "avoids exhaustive evaluation of all possible models" and that "the final model and the refined set of predictor variables to produce an optimized predictive model with reduced computational resource requirements relative to brute-force model evaluation." No support could be located for these limitations in the Specification. The other independent claims recite analogous limitations. The dependent claims inherit the rejections of their respective base claims and, as such, are rejected for the same reasons.
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, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1, 6, and 11-18, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
receiving time series input data including smoothed data;
adding a plurality of dynamic linear models (DLM) to iteratively regularize the data and refine variable selection, wherein the iteration process employs Lasso and elastic net regression to optimize the selection based on statistical error minimization;
iteratively generating a super set of candidate models and predictor variables by dynamically selecting the transformation of the predictor variables using a predefined rule set, wherein each candidate model iteration considers multiple variable forms and avoids exhaustive evaluation of all possible models;
selecting an optimal best subset of models from the generated super set based on statistical evaluation metrics comprising data constraints and error performance indicators;
removing correlation from the selected subset of models using a Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR) technique to create a final model;
normalizing time-based variations in the predictor variables by dynamically adjusting for temporal dependencies to produce a final refined set of predictor variables;
applying orthogonalization techniques to the predictor variables to reduce multicollinearity among them; and
executing a convex optimization algorithm on the final model and the refined set of predictor variables to produce an optimized predictive model with reduced computational resource requirements relative to brute-force model evaluation.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for choosing a model that best determines a pricing adjustment range (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, fundamental economic practices; commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors) (see also published Specification ¶¶ 0012-16, 37, supporting that the only embodiment the inventor envisioned for these calculations is for consumer pricing). Additionally, each of the steps can be characterized as a mathematical relationship/formula expressed in words (see published Specification ¶¶ 0040-45, 0060-65 and their analogous recitations in the claims). Although the claims recite that the optimized predictive model has reduced computational resource requirements relative to brute-force model evaluation, it is not clear that the computational resource requirements are particular to computers or technology, and moreover this limitation is expressed as an intended result rather than an additional step in the process. A process that starts with data, applies an algorithm to the data, and then ends with a new form of data is abstract. Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co, Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—price optimization based on factors such as offers, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as price adjustment range optimization based on factors such as consumer surplus factor and current market share; Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—determining a price using organizational and product group hierarchies, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as determining a price adjustment range using a convex optimization algorithm).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (data processing device/data processor, memory/memory device—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it."
Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (data processing device/data processor, memory/memory device, data smoothing module—see Specification pgs. 13 & 19 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the same abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. They do not add any additional elements to be analyzed here. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628