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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/09/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-40 are pending in the instant patent application. Claims 1, 10, and 21-37 have been amended. Claim 41 was previously canceled. This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the latest claims submitted on 09/09/2025.
Response to Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and per guidelines for 101 analysis (PEG 2019).
Response to 35 U.S.C. §101 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims are not directed towards abstract ideas and is integrated into a practical application, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the amendments, Examiner maintains that the claims recite abstract ideas. Regarding the amended language, Examiner will note that it is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea). Examiner finds that the amended language is akin to the previous court decisions above regarding the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, it would be reasonable to assert that the amended language recites a mathematical concept.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that the elements presented in the claims are generic in nature performing generic functions (ie: basic computational data analysis and mere data gathering). Furthermore, Examiner reminds Applicant, regardless of the complexity and/or granularity of the type of data, computational data analysis without meaningful limitations within the claims that amount to significantly more, is an abstract idea.
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.
Regarding Claims 1-20, they are directed to a system, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of finding insights based on metrics.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites to use target metrics, data, and metadata and schema to generate important supporting metrics, supporting metrics meta information, and best grouping columns; uses the important supporting metrics, the supporting metrics meta information, and the best grouping columns to generate a forward model and a backward model; obtains one or more of analysis period, agent-specified target metrics value, and agent-specified supporting metrics value to generate one or both of predicted target metrics value and predicted supporting metrics value that distributes error between an actual target metrics value and a forward-model prediction across supporting metrics in proportion to feature-importance scores and computes adjusted supporting-metric values by subtracting each metric's allocated error from the predicted target metrics value and re-solving the forward model using that metric's regression coefficient to make the forward model and the backward model in sync; uses the analysis period, historical data of target and supporting metrics, and anomaly scan direction to generate a target metrics anomaly score and anomaly reasoning; uses the best grouping columns and timeseries data to generate predicted values of target metrics for future periods with breakup; provides suggestions how to achieve expected targets.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment) and/or with pen/paper as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examiner will also note that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. In addition, falling into the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas due to the mathematical relationships/calculations taking place.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 2-20 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a deep metrics discovery engine, a target metrics/supporting metrics (TMSM) association modeling engine, a strategy planning engine, a descriptive analytics engine, a predictive analytics engine, a prescriptive analytics engine, forward model, backward model and TMSM sync algorithm. The deep metrics discovery engine, a target metrics/supporting metrics (TMSM) association modeling engine, a strategy planning engine, a descriptive analytics engine, a predictive analytics engine, a prescriptive analytics engine, forward model, backward model and TMSM sync algorithm are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1-17 and 19-20 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a deep metrics discovery engine; a target metrics/supporting metrics (TMSM) association modeling engine; a strategy planning engine; a descriptive analytics engine; a predictive analytics engine; a prescriptive analytics engine, a server engine, a target metrics datastore, an important supporting metrics datastore, a supporting metrics meta information datastore, a best grouping columns datastore, a forward model datastore, a backward model datastore, a data sampler engine, a preprocess engine, an eligibility engine, a transform engine, a supporting metrics synthesis engine, an important supporting metrics ranking engine, a meta enrichment engine, an important categorical claims discovery engine, a forward modeling engine, a backward modeling engine, a timeseries engine, a TMSM sync engine, a target metrics anomaly detection engine, a univariate timeseries anomaly detector algorithm, an anomaly reason finder engine, backward model, forward model, TMSM sync algorithm and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0055-0060. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claims 1-17 and 19-20, alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 21-40, they are directed to a method, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 21-40 are directed to the abstract idea of finding insights based on metrics.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 21, claim 21 recites generating important supporting metrics, supporting metrics meta information, and best grouping columns using target metrics, data, and metadata and schema; generating a forward model and a backward model using the important supporting metrics, the supporting metrics meta information, and the best grouping columns; generating one or both of predicted target metrics value and predicted supporting metrics value using one or more of analysis period, agent-specified target metrics value, and agent- specified supporting metrics value that distributes error between an actual target metrics value and a forward-model prediction across supporting metrics in proportion to feature-importance scores and computes adjusted supporting-metric values by subtracting each metric's allocated error from the predicted target metrics value and re-solving the forward model using that metric's regression coefficient to make the forward model and the backward model in sync; generating a target metrics anomaly score and anomaly reasoning using the analysis period, historical data of target and supporting metrics, and anomaly scan direction; generating predicted values of target metrics for future periods with breakup using the best grouping columns and timeseries data; providing suggestions how to achieve expected targets.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment) and/or with pen/paper as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examiner will also note that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. In addition, falling into the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas due to the mathematical relationships/calculations taking place.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 22-40 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a forward model, backward model and TMSM sync algorithm. The forward model, backward model and TMSM sync algorithm are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 21-23, 34 and 36 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include deep metrics discovery engine, server engine, target metrics datastore, important supporting metrics datastore, supporting metrics meta information datastore, best grouping columns datastore, forward model datastore, backward model datastore, univariate timeseries predictor algorithm, univariate timeseries anomaly detector algorithm, forward model, backward model, TMSM sync algorithm and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0055-0060. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claims 21-23, 34 and 36, alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/T.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625