DETAILED ACTION
The present office action represents a final action on the merits.
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 .
Priority
This application claims priority filing date of 371 of PCT JP2020/015680 of 4/07/2020.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-5 are amended and Claims 1-6 are pending.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 6 are drawn to an apparatus, for analyzing a causal relationship between an incidence of a predetermined disease and a predetermined intervention, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claim 4 is drawn to an apparatus for analyzing a causal relationship between a predetermined event and a predetermined intervention by propensity score analysis, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claim 5 is drawn to a method for analyzing a causal relationship between an incidence of a predetermined disease and a predetermined intervention, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., process).
Claim 1 recites an analysis apparatus for analyzing a causal relationship between an incidence of a predetermined disease and a predetermined intervention, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor configured to execute:
converting a plurality of first parameters indicative of attributes of users belonging to a population, at least two of the parameters having correlations with a predetermined strength, to a plurality of second parameters without the correlations with the predetermined strength with each other;
computing a propensity score for each of the users, using the plurality of second parameters and a parameter indicative of presence or absence of the intervention;
clustering the users belonging to the population using the propensity score, to analyze the causal relationship, wherein the propensity score is analyzed by converting covariates to mutually uncorrelated variables while retaining a relationship between the covariates;
reconstructing a treated group and a control group based on the propensity score; and
estimating a casual effect based on the reconstructed treated group and the reconstructed control group, wherein the casual effect is estimated by using a plurality of covariate principal component vectors to prevent occurrence of multicollinearity.
Claim 4 recites an analysis apparatus for analyzing a causal relationship between a predetermined event and a predetermined intervention by propensity score analysis, comprising:
a memory, and a processor configured to execute:
converting a plurality of covariates indicative of attributes of samples belonging to a population, at least two of the covariates having correlations with a predetermined strength, to a plurality of variables without the correlations with the predetermined strength with each other;
computing a propensity score for each of the samples, using the plurality of variables and a treatment variable indicative of presence or absence of the intervention;
reconstructing a first group and a second group made by classifying the samples based on presence or absence of the intervention using the propensity score so that the covariates become similar, wherein the propensity score is analyzed by converting the covariates to mutually uncorrelated variables while retaining a relationship between the covariates;
reconstructing a treated group and a control group based on the propensity score; and
estimating a casual effect based on the reconstructed treated group and the reconstructed control group, wherein the casual effect is estimated by using a plurality of covariate principal component vectors to prevent occurrence of multicollinearity.
Claim 5 recites an analysis method executed by an analysis apparatus for analyzing a causal relationship between an incidence of a predetermined disease and a predetermined intervention, the analysis apparatus including a memory and a processor, the analysis method comprising:
converting a plurality of first parameters indicative of attributes of users belonging to a population, at least two of the parameters having correlations with a predetermined strength, to a plurality of second parameters without the correlations with a predetermined strength with each other;
computing a propensity score for each of the users, using the plurality of second parameters and a parameter indicative of presence or absence of the intervention;
clustering users belonging to the population using the propensity score, to analyze the causal relationship, wherein the propensity score is analyzed by converting covariates to mutually uncorrelated variables while retaining a relationship between the covariates;
reconstruct a treated group and a control group based on the propensity score; and
estimating a casual effect based on the reconstructed treated group and the reconstructed control group, wherein the casual effect is estimated by using a plurality of covariate principal component vectors to prevent occurrence of multicollinearity.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., analyzing a causal relationship between an incidence of a predetermined disease and a predetermined intervention). The underlined limitations are not part of the identified abstract idea (the method of organizing human activity) and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 6 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Specifically, claim 2 recites wherein the converting performs principal component analysis using the plurality of first parameters of the users belonging to the population and converts each one of the plurality of first parameters to a principal component point, to convert the plurality of first parameters to the plurality of second parameters, claim 3 recites wherein the clustering clusters the users belonging to the population, using the parameter indicative of presence or absence of the intervention and the propensity score, by matching a set of users with the intervention and a set of users without the intervention based on the propensity score, or by dividing each of the set of users with the intervention and the set of users without the intervention into subclasses based on the propensity score, claim 6 recites non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon, which when executed, cause a computer to function as the analysis apparatus according claim 1, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 4, and 5.
The additional elements from claims 1-5 include:
analysis apparatus (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements from claims 1, 4, and 5 include:
a memory (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
a processor configured to (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements from claim 6 include:
non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
a computer to function (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements, in the independent claims are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e., the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of, “analysis apparatus”, “processor”, “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”, “computer”, “memory”, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea e.g. see Specification Paragraphs [0038], [0042], [0044], and [0045]. (See MPEP 2106.05(f));
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification discloses that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature (i.e., the Specification Paragraphs [0038]-[0045], (i.e., computer, memory, processor) that are well understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e., healthcare, managing patient data);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving data over a network using the Internet to gather data, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives patient data and analyzes a causal relationship between an incidence of a predetermined disease and a predetermined intervention.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 6 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly represent no more than receiving data over a system (e.g., receive patient disease data claims 1-6.).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves analyzing a causal relationship between an incidence of a predetermined disease and a predetermined intervention or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The application, is an attempt to organize human activity, using a system to receive and transmit patient/consumer data. The inventive concept is the analysis apparatus for analyzing a causal relationship between an incidence of a predetermined disease and a predetermined intervention, which is not patentable. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-6 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/26/2025 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 112 Rejections in light of the claim amendments that overcome the prior rejection.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
With respect to claim 1 and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant’s amendment fails to overcome the previous rejection. As previously indicated, Claim 1 as amended recites an abstract idea, a method of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. Examiner withdraws any reference to the claims recitation as a mental process, the claims as previously discussed and as discussed above reference a method of organizing human activity. Applicant’s arguments relating to a mental process are moot. Applicant argues amended claim 1, “broadest interpretation, is directed to a technical solution to solve the technical problem of preventing occurrence of multicollinearity." (Remarks, page 6). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the claims fall within a method of organizing human activity and recite an abstract idea and the improvement is to the abstract idea - analyzing a causal relationship between an incidence of a predetermined disease and a predetermined intervention.
While practical application is a way to overcome the Prong 2 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, here, claim 1 fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant argues, “amended claim 1 is still not directed to an abstract idea because amended claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application (e.g. "estimating a casual effect based on the reconstructed treated group and the reconstructed control group, wherein the casual effect is estimated by using a plurality of covariate principal component vectors to prevent occurrence of multicollinearity")” (Remarks, page 7). Applicant further asserts, “According to MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." (Emphasis added). Applying the rule set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), amended claim 1 recites specific improvements to the technical field of preventing occurrence of multicollinearity. For example, amended claim 1 recites limitations of "estimating a casual effect based on the reconstructed treated group and the reconstructed control group, wherein the casual effect is estimated by using a plurality of covariate principal component vectors to prevent occurrence of multicollinearity." (Emphasis added).” (Remarks, page 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Preventing occurrence of multicollinearity, is not a technical problem rooted in the technology. Further, estimating a casual effect based on the reconstructed treated group and the reconstructed control group, wherein the casual effect is estimated by using a plurality of covariate principal component vectors to prevent occurrence of multicollinearity is an improvement to the abstract idea. The use of the analysis apparatus to perform various functions is directed to the abstract idea. The amended application is organizing human activity, directed to the abstract idea. Applicant states, “these data analysis steps are different from "a claim to 'collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,' where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A." (id.; 48 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016); emphasis added). Contrarily to Electric Power Group, amended claim 1 recites detailed features (e.g., "clustering the users belonging to the population using the score, to analyze the causal relationship, wherein the score is analyzed by converting covariates to mutually uncorrelated variables while retaining a relationship between the covariates and simultaneously preventing occurrence of multicollinearity and reconstruct a treated group and a control group based on the propensity score" etc.), which are beyond a high-level of generality.” (Remarks, page 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, Applicant "clustering the users belonging to the population using the propensity score, to analyze the causal relationship, wherein the propensity score is analyzed by converting covariates to mutually uncorrelated variables while retaining a relationship between the covariates; reconstructing a treated group and a control group based on the propensity score", is not a technical problem. The additional elements, the “analysis apparatus”, the “processor” and the “memory”, do not result in a practical application as they are recited at an apply it level, as stated above. All components in the claims are being used for their intended purpose and as written do not result in a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the improvement is to abstract idea - Applicant’s claims are directed to gathering information, analyzing a causal relationship between the data, organizing the information, comparing the information, and presenting the information.
Applicant further argues, “amended claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea, amended claim 1 is patent eligible because it recites additional elements that are "unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field."” (Remarks, page 8). Applicant states, “Applying the rule set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a), amended claim 1 recites a particular solution to address the computer-centric challenge of preventing occurrence of multicollinearity. For example, claim 1 recites "estimating a casual effect based on the reconstructed treated group and the reconstructed control group, wherein the casual effect is estimated by using a plurality of covariate principal component vectors to prevent occurrence of multicollinearity." (Emphasis added). These features are neither well-understood, routine, nor conventional in the field.” (Remarks, page 8). Applicant also states, “claim 1 recites and uses a particular machine, such as computing resources. Accordingly, the limitations recited in claim 1 qualifies as "significantly more". (Remarks, page 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the additional elements, including the analysis apparatus is being used for its intended purpose - analyzing a causal relationship between an incidence of a predetermined disease and a predetermined intervention. For the reasons stated above, claims 4 and 5 similarly fail to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
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 DAWN TRINAH HAYNES whose telephone number is (571)270-5994. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:15PM.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached on (571)272-8109. 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.
/DAWN T. HAYNES/
Art Unit 3686
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686