DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is responsive to both the application and preliminary amendment filed November 1, 2021. The preliminary amendment cancelled claims 1-20 as originally filed and added new claims 21-35. Claims 21-35 are currently pending in the case, with claim 21 in independent form.
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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Summary of Detailed Action
The abstract of the disclosure is objected.
Claims 21, 22, 28 are objected to regarding informalities.
Duplicate Claims Warnings.
Claims 22-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 31, 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 32, 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Specification - Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 22 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, line 21, change as follows “function operates to
Claim 22, line 3, change as follows: “Data Shapley process to analyze”
Claim 28, line 2, change as follows: “decision-making process involves”
Appropriate correction is required.
Duplicate Claims Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 31 be found allowable, claim 33 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 32 be found allowable, claim 34 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 22-35 depend from claims that are cancelled. Claims 22, 26-32 and 35 depend from cancelled claim 1. Claim 23 depends from cancelled claim 2. Claim 24 depends from cancelled claim 3. Claim 25 depends from cancelled claim 4. Claim 33 depends from cancelled claim 10. Claim 34 depends from cancelled claim 13. Therefore, dependent claims 22-35 are unclear as to what claim they depend from. For purposes of examination, claims 22, 26-32 and 35 are interpreted as depending from independent claim 21. Claim 23 is interpreted as depending from claim 22. Claim 24 is interpreted as depending from claim 23. Claim 25 is interpreted as depending from claim 24. Claim 33 is interpreted as depending from claim 30. Claim 34 is interpreted as depending from claim 32. Applicant may cancel claims 22-35 or amend all claims 22-35 to recite valid claim dependency and particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 22-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 21-35 recite a computer implemented analytical method for preparing a utility model to develop structural trends in a manner that is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Applicant may cancel claims 21-35 or amend the claims to conform with current U.S. practice and particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 21 recites “utility model.” However, it is not at clear what a utility model is or is not. For example, is a utility model any model that is of use or utility? Or is a utility model something else entirely? Thus, the boundaries of the claim are not clear and the claim is indefinite. As discussed above, claims 22-35 are unclear regarding dependency and for examination purposes are interpreted as depending directly or indirectly from claim 21. Therefore, claims 22-35 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 21. Applicant may cancel claims 21-35 or amend all claims 22-35 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 21 recites “structural trends.” However, it is not at clear what structural trends are or are not. It is not clear how a trend is structural or non-structural and the boundaries of the claim are indefinite. As discussed above, claims 22-35 are unclear regarding dependency and for examination purposes are interpreted as depending directly or indirectly from claim 21. Therefore, claims 22-35 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 21. Applicant may cancel claims 21-35 or amend all claims 22-35 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 21 recites “prepare a database of a plurality of factors.” It is not clear what “preparing a database means, includes or does not include. For example, is “prepare a database of a plurality of factors” mean storing a plurality of factors in a database? Or does it mean inputting a plurality of factors into a database? Or does it mean creating or designing a database? Or does preparing a database of a plurality of factors mean something else entirely? Thus, it is not clear what prepare a database of a plurality of factors means, much less what it does or not include. Therefore, the boundaries of the claim are indefinite. As discussed above, claims 22-35 are unclear regarding dependency and for examination purposes are interpreted as depending directly or indirectly from claim 21. Therefore, claims 22-35 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 21. Applicant may cancel claims 21-35 or amend all claims 22-35 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 21 recites “identify factors to organize a set of control factors from the plurality of factors to use in a decision making process.” It is not clear if “identify factors” means to identify factors in of the plurality of factors or if “identify factors” means to identify different factors that are not in the plurality of factors. It is further not clear what “control factors” means in terms of what is or is not being controlled. Therefore, the boundaries of the claim are indefinite. As discussed above, claims 22-35 are unclear regarding dependency and for examination purposes are interpreted as depending directly or indirectly from claim 21. Therefore, claims 22-35 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 21. Applicant may cancel claims 21-35 or amend all claims 22-35 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 21 recites analyzing the factors in the control set of factors by “employing an algorithm which is configured to employ data analytics to identify the structure of the decision making process” to “create a plurality of factors forming a set of decision factors” and to employ machine learning to characterize and rank the factors in the decision making process then “converting the factors forming the set of decision factors into a stored quantitative data set” wherein the stored “quantitative data set ranks the factors in the quantitative data set”. This limitation is unclear and nearly incomprehensible. For example, it is not clear what “identify the structure of the decision making process” means or what is actually being identified or not being identified because it is not clear what the structure of the decision making process is or is not. Is the identified structure of the decision making process an algorithm? Or a rule? Or a workflow? Or a set of parameters? Or is the identified structure of the decision making process a specific hardware implementation? Or is it all or none of the above and something else entirely? It is further unclear how “to employ data analytics to identify the structure of the decision making process.” It is still yet further unclear how “analyzing factors in the control set of factors by employing an algorithm which is configured to employ data analytics to identify the structure of the decision making process” serves “to create a plurality of factors forming a set of decision factors.” It is not clear how identifying structure of the decision making process is used to create a plurality of factors that forms a set of decision factors. Furthermore, the phrase “to create a plurality of factors forming a set of decision factors” is not clear regarding whether the created factors forming a set of decision factors are brand new factors separate and apart from the database plurality of factors and the control set of factors. Or are the factors not necessarily newly created but rather factors that are identified? It is extremely unclear which factors are referenced in the phrase “to employ machine learning to characterize and rank the factors in the decision making process.” For example are “the factors” in the decision making process the plurality of factors in the prepared database, or the control set of factors, or newly created factors, or identified factors in the set of decision factors? Or are the factors something else entirely? It is further unclear what “converting the factors forming the set of decision factors into a stored quantitative data set wherein the stored quantitative data set ranks the factors in the quantitative data set” means because the decision factors have already been characterized and ranked by the machine learning and it is not clear how to convert the factors that are being converted and what the factors are being converted to, in order to convert decision factors into quantitative data,. It is not clear what the difference is between the decision factors and the converted decision factors quantitative data. For example, are the decision factors character data that is converted into to numerical data? Or are the decision factors converted by being aggregated into numerical counts. Or is the are the decision factors being converted into another format? Or are the decision factors being converted in some other entirely different manner? It is further unclear how the stored quantitative data set ranks the factors in the quantitative data set because a data set alone cannot take action. Does some process rank the quantitative data set? If so, which process or what process ranks the data set? Also unclear is which factors are being ranked. Are the converted factors being ranked or are some other type of factors being ranked. Thus, the boundaries of the claim are indefinite. As discussed above, claims 22-35 are unclear regarding dependency and for examination purposes are interpreted as depending directly or indirectly from claim 21. Therefore, claims 22-35 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 21. Applicant may cancel claims 21-35 or amend all claims 22-35 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 21 recites: determining whether an additional factor is necessary in the decision-making process by analyzing “the factors” in the quantitative data set through the application of an algorithm employing “Data Sharpley” to the quantitative data set wherein the “Data Sharpley operates to decompose” the factors in the quantitative data set to “scour” the factors “to determine a change in condition based on the factors” and “generate a set of additional factors based on the change in condition.” It is not clear what Data Sharpley is or is not and the boundaries of the claim are indefinite. It appears that a typographical error occurred and that applicant intended claim 21 to recite “Data Shapley” as disclosed in the originally filed specification and recited by claim 22. For examination purposes, claim 21 is interpreted as reciting “an algorithm employing Data Shapley.” However, neither the claims nor the specification define a Data Shapley algorithm and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the boundaries of the invention and the Data Shapley term is vague and indefinite. It is further unclear what “decompose the factors in the quantitative data set to scour the factors” means or encompasses, much less what decomposed factors are or are not or how decomposing the factors serves to scour the factors. For example how does Data Sharply (Data Shapley) operate to decompose the factors in the quantitative data set and what does “scour” mean? Does scour mean analyze factors that are somehow decomposed by some Data Shapley operation? Or does scouring mean cleaning the factors or performing a scrubbing process, or performing some other type of processing on the factors? Or does “scour” the factors mean something else entirely? It is further unclear how scouring the factors serves “to determine a change in condition based on the factors” much less how to generate a set of additional factors based on the change in condition. The claim language is extremely vague, general and narrative in manner such that it is nearly impossible to determine the actual functionality and boundaries of the method being claimed. The numerous inconsistent references to factors in combination with the conclusory, vague, general, narrative language renders the claim indefinite. As discussed above, claims 22-35 are unclear regarding dependency and for examination purposes are interpreted as depending directly or indirectly from claim 21. Therefore, claims 22-35 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 21. Applicant may cancel claims 21-35 or amend all claims 22-35 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent claim 21 recites generating a utility function consisting of an algorithm to review “the additional factors” wherein the utility function operates to the “determine the strategy options” based on “the additional factors” by providing a weight to the additional factors to generate a utility score, then “utilizing artificial intelligence and data analytics to consolidate the utility scores of the additional factors to generate a utility function representation that weighs the additional factors to determine priority of the additional factors and generate a rank ordering of preferences for the additional factors;” and applying the utility function to the factors in the control set of factors to generate a final set of factors to use in the decision-making process.
The limitation “the additional factors” lacks antecedent basis. This limitation is not clear if “the additional factors” are the same as or different from the recited set of additional factors.
Additionally, it is not clear what “determine the strategy options” means or what it includes or does not include, much less how it strategy options are determined. The phrase “determine the strategy options” is generally narrative and vague language that is indefinite in terms of what the claimed functionality is or is not, much less how to perform the conclusory recited to determine the strategy options. Again, what the strategy options are or are not is unclear and how they are determined is any ones guess. The recitation “utilizing artificial intelligence and data analytics to consolidate the utility scores of the additional factors to generate a utility function representation that weighs the additional factors to determine priority of the additional factors and generate a rank ordering of preferences for the additional factors” is not clear in terms of how to simply “utilize AI and data analytics” and how to “to consolidate” the utility scores of the additional factors and how “to generate a utility function representation” that “weighs” the additional factors to determine priority of the additional factors and generate a rank ordering of preferences for the additional factors. The claim limitation is general, vague, conclusory in that it recites to simply use AI and data analytics to somehow consolidate … to generate a utility function representation … that “weighs” … to determine… and generate. It is further unclear what a utility function representation is or is not. For example is a utility function representation an actual utility function? Or is a utility function representation something else entirely? It is further unclear what the term “weighs” means. For example, does weight mean comparing additional factors to each other? Or does weighs mean evaluating or ranking the additional factors? Or does weigh mean considering weights of additional factors? Or does weighs mean something else entirely? Thus, the boundaries of the claim are indefinite. As discussed above, claims 22-35 are unclear regarding dependency and for examination purposes are interpreted as depending directly or indirectly from claim 21. Therefore, claims 22-35 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 21. Applicant may cancel claims 21-35 or amend all claims 22-35 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 22 recites the limitation "a Data Shapley process” and is interpreted as depending from claim 21, which is interpreted as reciting “an algorithm employing Data Shapely.” It is not clear if "a Data Shapley process” of claim 22 is the same as “an algorithm employing Data Shapely” of claim 21 as interpreted for examination. Or is "a Data Shapley” process” of claim 22 is different than “an algorithm employing Data Shapely” of claim 21 as interpreted for examination. Or is Data Shapely of claim 22 something entirely different from Data Sharpley, which is actually recited by claim 21. Further, as similarly discussed above with respect to claim 21, it is not clear what a Data Shapley process is or is not and the boundaries of the claim are indefinite. Neither the claims nor the specification define a Data Shapley process or algorithm and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the boundaries of the invention. Therefore, a Data Shapley process is vague and the claim is indefinite. Applicant may cancel claims 22 or amend all claims 22 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 24 recites “for utilizing an algorithm to apply data analytics to locate interactions between the control factors and the final set of factors.” It is not clear how factors interact. For example, is to “locate interactions between … factors” supposed to mean identify relationships between … factors? Or are the factors somehow interacting with each other? Or are factors located somewhere? This limitation is general and narrative and indefinite regarding what functionality is being claimed and what the boundaries of the functionality are or are not. Therefore, claim 24 is indefinite. Applicant may cancel claim 24 or amend all claim 24 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 30 recites “utilizing decision theory in the utility function to review the additional factors.” It is not clear how to generally use decision theory in the utility function to somehow review additional factors. This limitation recites subject matter using general and narrative language that is indefinite regarding what functionality is being claimed and what the boundaries of the functionality are or are not. Therefore, claim 30 is indefinite. Applicant may cancel claim 30 or amend all claim 30 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 31 and 33 recite “utilizing game theory in the utility function to review the additional factors.” It is not clear how to generally use game theory in the utility function to somehow review additional factors. This limitation recites subject matter using general and narrative language that is indefinite regarding what functionality is being claimed and what the boundaries of the functionality are or are not. Therefore, claim 31 is indefinite. Applicant may cancel claim 31 or amend all claim 31 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 32 and 34 recite “utilizing use nonlinear time series in the utility function to review the additional factors.” It is not clear how to generally use nonlinear time series in the utility function to somehow review additional factors. This limitation recites subject matter using general and narrative language that is indefinite regarding what functionality is being claimed and what the boundaries of the functionality are or are not. Therefore, claims 32 and 34 are indefinite. Applicant may cancel claims 32 and 34 or amend all claims 32adn 34 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 35 recites utilizing a “high-performance” computing cluster running a Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm across multiple cores as part of the utility function to investigate a pockets of a topology in the additional factors. The term “high-performance computing cluster” in claim 35 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-performance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 35 recites utilizing a high-performance computing cluster running a Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm across multiple cores as part of the utility function to investigate a pockets of a topology in the additional factors. It is not clear if one pocket of topology is investigated or if a plurality of pockets are investigated, which renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 35 recites “utilizing a high-performance computing cluster running a Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm across multiple cores as part of the utility function to investigate a pockets of a topology in the additional factors.” It is not clear how to generally use a computing cluster running a Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm across multiple cores as part of the utility function to investigate one or more pockets of a topology in the additional factors. It is further unclear what pockets of a topology in the additional factors means, much less how it can be investigated. For example, how do the additional factors have a topology, much less a pocket or pockets of a topology. This limitation recites subject matter using general and narrative language that is indefinite regarding what functionality is being claimed and what the boundaries of the functionality are or are not. Therefore, claim 35 is indefinite. Applicant may cancel claim 35 or amend all claim 35 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
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 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter at a high, general level that are mental processes and mathematical concepts of an analytical method for preparing a utility model to develop structural trends comprising the steps of: preparing a plurality of factors; identifying factors to organize a set of control factors from the plurality of factors to use in a decision making process; analyzing the factors in the control set of factors by employing an algorithm which is configured to employ data analytics to identify the structure of the decision making process to create a plurality of factors forming a set of decision factors and characterize and rank the factors in the decision making process then converting the factors forming the set of decision factors into a quantitative data set wherein the quantitative data set ranks the factors in the quantitative data set; determining whether an additional factor is necessary in the decision-making process by analyzing the factors in the quantitative data set (which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or by a human with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).) through the application of an algorithm employing Data Sharpley to the quantitative data set wherein the Data Sharpley operates to decompose the factors in the quantitative data set to scour the factors to determine a change in condition based on the factors and generate a set of additional factors based on the change in condition; generating a utility function consisting of an algorithm to review the additional factors wherein the utility function operates to the determine the strategy options based on the additional factors by providing a weight to the additional factors to generate a utility score (which are mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or mathematical calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas.), then utilizing data analytics to consolidate the utility scores of the additional factors to generate a utility function representation that weighs the additional factors to determine priority of the additional factors and generate a rank ordering of preferences for the additional factors; (which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or by a human with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)) and applying the utility function to the factors in the control set of factors to generate a final set of factors to use in the decision-making process (which are mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or mathematical calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas.). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 21-35 recite one of the four statutory categories of patent able subject matter and belong to the statutory class(es) of a process (method claims 21-35), a machine (system/apparatus), and an article of manufacture (non-transitory computer readable media).
Claim 21 recites a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 21 further recites an analytical method for preparing a utility model to develop structural trends comprising the steps of: preparing a plurality of factors; identifying factors to organize a set of control factors from the plurality of factors to use in a decision making process; analyzing the factors in the control set of factors by employing an algorithm which is configured to employ data analytics to identify the structure of the decision making process to create a plurality of factors forming a set of decision factors and characterize and rank the factors in the decision making process then converting the factors forming the set of decision factors into a quantitative data set wherein the quantitative data set ranks the factors in the quantitative data set; determining whether an additional factor is necessary in the decision-making process by analyzing the factors in the quantitative data set, (which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or by a human with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).) through the application of an algorithm employing Data Sharpley to the quantitative data set wherein the Data Sharpley operates to decompose the factors in the quantitative data set to scour the factors to determine a change in condition based on the factors and generate a set of additional factors based on the change in condition; generating a utility function consisting of an algorithm to review the additional factors wherein the utility function operates to the determine the strategy options based on the additional factors by providing a weight to the additional factors to generate a utility score, (which are mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or mathematical calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas.) then utilizing data analytics to consolidate the utility scores of the additional factors to generate a utility function representation that weighs the additional factors to determine priority of the additional factors and generate a rank ordering of preferences for the additional factors; (which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or by a human with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Additionally the recitation of “a utility function representation that weighs the additional factors to determine priority of the additional factors and generate a rank ordering of preferences for the additional factors” is also mathematical concepts mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or mathematical calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas.) and applying the utility function to the factors in the control set of factors to generate a final set of factors to use in the decision-making process (which are mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or mathematical calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas.).
Claim 21 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element consist of:
computer implemented (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).)
a database of (an additional element of extra-solution Activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather and store data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), MPEP 2106.04(d); 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.)
employ machine learning to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
stored (an additional element of extra-solution Activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather and store data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), MPEP 2106.04(d); 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.)
utilizing artificial intelligence (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h))
Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use does not meaningfully limit the claim, and data transmission over a network and data storage is well-understood, routine and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d) and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 22, dependent on 1 (interpreted as dependent on 21), recites additional mathematical processes for determining a data analysis factor using a Data Shapley process to analyzes relationships between the decision making factors to determine a weight by searching through different factors given a weight until a data analysis weight for the data analysis factor is determined, which are mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or mathematical calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas.
Claim 23, dependent on 2 (interpreted as dependent on 22), recites additional mathematical concepts for utilizing the data weight and data analytics to consolidate the data weight in the utility function, which are mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or mathematical calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas.
Claim 23 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element consist of:
utilizing artificial intelligence (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 24, dependent on 3 (interpreted as dependent on 23), recites additional mental processes and mathematical concepts for utilizing an algorithm to apply data analytics to locate interactions between the control factors and the final set of factors, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or by a human with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Additionally, this recitation is also mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or mathematical calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas.).
Claim 25, dependent on 4 (interpreted as dependent on 24), recites additional mathematical concepts for using decision theory on the final set of factors to determine if further analysis is required, which are mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or mathematical calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas.
Claim 26, dependent on 1 (interpreted as dependent on 21), recites additional mathematical concepts for utilizing the data weight and data analytics to consolidate the data weight in the utility function, which are mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or mathematical calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas.
Claim 26 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element consist of:
utilizing artificial intelligence (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 27, dependent on 1 (interpreted as dependent on 21), recites additional mental processes for wherein the decision-making process involves a trust, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or by a human with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 28, dependent on 1 (interpreted as dependent on 21), recites additional mental processes for the decision-making process involve a clinical trial, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or by a human with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 29, dependent on 1 (interpreted as dependent on 21), recites additional mental processes for wherein the factors, control factors and quantitative data set is maintained in a central repository, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or by a human with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 29 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element consist of:
stored (an additional element of extra-solution Activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather and store data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), MPEP 2106.04(d); 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
Claim 30, dependent on 1 (interpreted as dependent on 21), recites additional mathematical concepts and mental processes for utilizing decision theory in the utility function to review the additional factors, which are mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or mathematical calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Additionally, the recitation “to review the additional factors” is also mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or by a human with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106