Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 14 – 16, 20 and 21 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 15 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 3 – 5, 7, 8, 11 – 13 and 17 – 19 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
With respect to 101:
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues that the claims cannot be mentally achieved based on the claimed invention is directed to a technical solution for computer-based prediction using a specific data preparation and model-input framework, not reasonable to be mentally performed as stated on page 14 of the remarks.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is integrated into a practical application based on a sequence of operations. The Applicant then argues provided claims are an improvement to the technological field of improving the accuracy and efficiency of predicative modeling in a manner not previously performed in the art, as stated on pages 14 and 15 of the remarks.
Applicant argues that claim 1 should not be rejected under Step 2B based on not being merely routine or conventional in the art, as stated on pages 15 and 16 of the remarks.
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites how the system constructs the model input, how the transitive relations are filtered, how the stored structures are used by the single ML model, and how the model prioritizes the candidate consequent topics.
Examiner’s answer:
Regarding the Applicant’s assertion that the claim as a whole is directed to a technical solution for computer-based prediction using a specific data preparation and model-input framework and is not reasonable to be mentally performed, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with page 14 of the Applicant’s remarks. The Applicant does not point out a specific citation to its specification to prove technical solution. Regarding the Applicant’s assertion that the claimed limitations cannot be mentally performable because of the use of storing, retrieving and inputting data into a ML, the claimed limitations that do use an of storing, retrieving and inputting data aren’t being analyzed as mentally performable and instead are being analyzed as mere data gathering. Thus, the judicial exception exceptions are not integrated into a technical solution.
Regarding the Applicant’s assertion that the claim as a whole is directed to an improvement to improving the accuracy and efficiency of predicative modeling in a manner not previously performed in the art, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with pages 14 and 15 of the Applicant’s remarks. The Applicant states the motivation at a high level of generality without providing citation to its specification and not that an ordinary artisan would see as an improvement to the art. Thus, the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding the Applicant’s assertion that the claim is an ordered combination that is not conventional to “apply it on a computer”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with pages 15 and 16 of the Applicant’s remarks. . The Applicant states the motivation at a high level of generality without providing citation to its specification. They are still recited at a high level of generality and are being invoked merely as tools to perform the underlying abstract idea of improving the accuracy of predictions.
Regarding the Applicant’s assertation that claim 1 recites how the system constructs the model input, how the transitive relations are filtered, how the stored structures are used by the single ML model, and how the model prioritizes the candidate consequent topics. The Examiner agrees that the claim does recite a technical arrangement.
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, 2, 6, 9, 10, 14 – 16, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following sections follow the 2019 PEG guidelines for analyzing subject matter eligibility.
The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”)
and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial
Intelligence, 89 Fed. Reg. 58128-58138 (July 17, 2024) (“2024 AI SME Update”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined
whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the
statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed
to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first
prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception
(e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If
it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis
proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the
claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A,
Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the
analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the
exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of
elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception
into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
generating, a dataset using a plurality of topics associated with a plurality of historical records, respectively, the plurality of historical records are associated with a plurality of user identifiers of different users, the generating including: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
mining transitive relations across the plurality of historical records of the plurality of user identifiers by forming, from the plurality of historical records, each of the pairs of data comprising an antecedent topic associated with a historical record corresponding to a preceding event and a consequent topic associated with a historical record corresponding to an event that occurred after the preceding event (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
aggregating the pairs of data formed from the plurality of historical records of the plurality of user identifiers of different users to create the dataset representing the transitive relations mined jointly across the plurality of user identifiers; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
processing, the dataset to generate a filtered dataset comprising transitive relations selected among the aggregated pairs of data, the processing including: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
computing a support value for each pair of data based on a ratio of a number of pairs of data containing a same antecedent topic and a same consequent topic to a total number of the plurality of historical records (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
filtering the pairs of data by comparing the support value for each pair to a first user-configurable threshold, and retaining pairs with support values exceeding the first user-configurable threshold (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
computing a confidence value for each retained pair based on a ratio of a number of pairs of data including a same antecedent topic followed by a same consequent topic to a number of occurrences of the antecedent topic in the plurality of historical records (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.)
filtering the retained pairs by comparing the confidence value for each pair to a second user-configurable threshold, and preserving pairs with confidence values exceeding the second user-configurable threshold (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
computing a lift value for each preserved pair of data based on a ratio of the confidence value associated with each preserved pair of data to a support value of the consequent topic (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.)
filtering the preserved pairs by comparing a computed lift value for each pair to a third user-configurable threshold, and retaining final pairs with lift values exceeding the third user-configurable threshold, and including the final pairs in the filtered dataset; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating, one or more predictions of one or more next record topics for a next record corresponding to the user identifier the generating including matching the input topic to antecedent topics in the final pairs, selecting consequent topics associated with matched pairs, and prioritizing the consequent topics based on corresponding confidence values and lift values, wherein the next record corresponds to a second event; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
generating, by a record topic prediction system (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
processing, by the record topic prediction system (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
storing, by the record topic prediction system, the filtered dataset and support, confidence, and lift values in a storage subsystem; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
retrieving, by the record topic prediction system from the storage subsystem, the stored filtered dataset, the confidence values, and the lift values, for input into a machine learning (ML) model incorporated into the record topic prediction system; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
inputting, into ML model, the filtered dataset, the confidence values, the lift values, and an input topic, among the plurality of topics, the input topic being which is associated with a record of a particular user, the record of the particular user corresponding to a first event and being associated with a user identifier for the particular user, wherein the ML model is a single model configured to jointly process the plurality of user identifiers using the filtered dataset representing the transitive relations mined across the plurality of user identifiers; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
generating, by the ML model using the transitive relations represented in the filtered dataset and mined jointly across the plurality of user identifiers (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting, by the record topic prediction system, the one or more predictions to an external device over a communication network, (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
wherein the antecedent topic and the consequent topic are included in the plurality of topics. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
generating, by a record topic prediction system (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
processing, by the record topic prediction system (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
storing, by the record topic prediction system, the filtered dataset and support, confidence, and lift values in a storage subsystem; (Storing and retrieving information in memory (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv))
retrieving, by the record topic prediction system from the storage subsystem, the stored filtered dataset, the confidence values, and the lift values, for input into a machine learning (ML) model incorporated into the record topic prediction system; (Storing and retrieving information in memory (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv))
inputting, into ML model, the filtered dataset, the confidence values, the lift values, and an input topic, among the plurality of topics, the input topic being which is associated with a record of a particular user, the record of the particular user corresponding to a first event and being associated with a user identifier for the particular user, wherein the ML model is a single model configured to jointly process the plurality of user identifiers using the filtered dataset representing the transitive relations mined across the plurality of user identifiers; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
generating, by the ML model using the transitive relations represented in the filtered dataset and mined jointly across the plurality of user identifiers (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting, by the record topic prediction system, the one or more predictions to an external device over a communication network, (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
wherein the antecedent topic and the consequent topic are included in the plurality of topics. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a method of predictive modeling, this is nothing more than using machine learning models to classify the provided data. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 incorporates the rejections of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated.
forming each of the pairs of data to include a first topic of the topics that is associated with a first time point on the timeline and a second topic of the topics that is associated with a second time point on the timeline that is later in time than the first time point, as the antecedent topic and the consequent topic, respectively. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
obtaining historical reports for the plurality of user identifiers, respectively, each respective historical report including topics associated with a respective historical record for one of the plurality of user identifiers, the topics being arranged in a sequence based on a timeline, wherein the topics are included in the plurality of topics (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining historical reports for the plurality of user identifiers, respectively, each respective historical report including topics associated with a respective historical record for one of the plurality of user identifiers, the topics being arranged in a sequence based on a timeline, wherein the topics are included in the plurality of topics (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Claim 6 incorporates the rejections of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated.
wherein the one or more pairs of data are included in a plurality of pairs of data, and the generating the one or more predictions further comprises: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
ordering the plurality of pairs of data in an order of decreasing confidence values (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
identifying, as a first result group, first pairs of data among the plurality of pairs of data that have greatest confidence values, wherein a number of the first pairs of data is defined to be greater than 1 and smaller than a predetermined first number (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
identifying, as a second result group, second pairs of data from the first result group that have greatest lift values, wherein a number of the second pairs of data is defined to be not smaller than 1 and smaller than the predetermined first number, (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating the one or more predictions based on the second pairs of data. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
generating a dataset using a plurality of topics associated with a plurality of historical records, respectively, the plurality of historical records are associated with a plurality of user identifiers of different users, the generating including: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
mining transitive relations across the plurality of historical records of the plurality of user identifiers by forming, from the plurality of historical records, each of the pairs of data comprising an antecedent topic associated with a historical record corresponding to a preceding event and a consequent topic associated with a historical record corresponding to an event that occurred after the preceding event (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
aggregating the pairs of data formed from the plurality of historical records of the plurality of user identifiers of different users to create the dataset representing the transitive relations mined jointly across the plurality of user identifiers; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
processing the dataset to generate a filtered dataset comprising transitive relations selected among the aggregated pairs of data, the processing including: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
computing a support value for each pair of data based on a ratio of a number of pairs of data containing a same antecedent topic and a same consequent topic to a total number of the plurality of historical records (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
filtering the pairs of data by comparing the support value for each pair to a first user-configurable threshold, and retaining pairs with support values exceeding the first user-configurable threshold (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
computing a confidence value for each retained pair based on a ratio of a number of pairs of data including a same antecedent topic followed by a same consequent topic to a number of occurrences of the antecedent topic in the plurality of historical records (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.)
filtering the retained pairs by comparing the confidence value for each pair to a second user-configurable threshold, and preserving pairs with confidence values exceeding the second user-configurable threshold (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
computing a lift value for each preserved pair of data based on a ratio of the confidence value associated with each preserved pair of data to a support value of the consequent topic (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.)
filtering the preserved pairs by comparing the lift value for each pair to a third user-configurable threshold, and retaining final pairs with lift values exceeding the third user-configurable threshold, and including the final pairs in the filtered dataset; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating, one or more predictions of one or more next record topics for a next record corresponding to the user identifier the generating including matching the input topic to antecedent topics in the final pairs, selecting consequent topics associated with matched pairs, and prioritizing the consequent topics based on corresponding confidence values and lift values, wherein the next record corresponds to a second event; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
one or more data processors; (The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computer) such than it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components MPEP § 2106.05(b))
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform a method including: (The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computer) such than it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components MPEP § 2106.05(b))
storing the filtered dataset and support, confidence, and lift values in a storage subsystem; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
retrieving, from the storage subsystem, the stored filtered dataset, the confidence values, and the lift values, for input into a machine learning (ML) model incorporated into the record topic prediction system; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
inputting, into ML model, the filtered dataset, the confidence values, the lift values, and an input topic, among the plurality of topics, the input topic being which is associated with a record of a particular user, the record of the particular user corresponding to a first event and being associated with a user identifier for the particular user, wherein the ML model is a single model configured to jointly process the plurality of user identifiers using the filtered dataset representing the transitive relations mined across the plurality of user identifiers; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
generating, by the ML model using the transitive relations represented in the filtered dataset and mined jointly across the plurality of user identifiers (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting, by the record topic prediction system, the one or more predictions to an external device over a communication network, (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
wherein the antecedent topic and the consequent topic are included in the plurality of topics. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
one or more data processors; (The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computer) such than it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components MPEP § 2106.05(b))
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform a method including: (The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computer) such than it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components MPEP § 2106.05(b))
storing the filtered dataset and support, confidence, and lift values in a storage subsystem; (Storing and retrieving information in memory (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv))
retrieving, from the storage subsystem, the stored filtered dataset, the confidence values, and the lift values, for input into a machine learning (ML) model incorporated into the record topic prediction system; (Storing and retrieving information in memory (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv))
inputting, into ML model, the filtered dataset, the confidence values, the lift values, and an input topic, among the plurality of topics, the input topic being which is associated with a record of a particular user, the record of the particular user corresponding to a first event and being associated with a user identifier for the particular user, wherein the ML model is a single model configured to jointly process the plurality of user identifiers using the filtered dataset representing the transitive relations mined across the plurality of user identifiers; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
generating, by the ML model using the transitive relations represented in the filtered dataset and mined jointly across the plurality of user identifiers (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting, by the record topic prediction system, the one or more predictions to an external device over a communication network, (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
wherein the antecedent topic and the consequent topic are included in the plurality of topics. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a method of predictive modeling, this is nothing more than using machine learning models to classify the provided data. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 incorporates the rejections of claim 9.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 9 are incorporated.
forming each of the pairs of data to include a first topic of the topics that is associated with a first time point on the timeline and a second topic of the topics that is associated with a second time point on the timeline that is later in time than the first time point, as the antecedent topic and the consequent topic, respectively. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
obtaining historical reports for the plurality of user identifiers, respectively, each respective historical report including topics associated with a respective historical record for one of the plurality of user identifiers, the topics being arranged in a sequence based on a timeline, wherein the topics are included in the plurality of topics (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining historical reports for the plurality of user identifiers, respectively, each respective historical report including topics associated with a respective historical record for one of the plurality of user identifiers, the topics being arranged in a sequence based on a timeline, wherein the topics are included in the plurality of topics (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Claim 14 incorporates the rejections of claim 9.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 9 are incorporated.
wherein the one or more pairs of data are included in a plurality of pairs of data, and the generating the one or more predictions further includes: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
ordering the plurality of pairs of data in an order of decreasing confidence values (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
identifying, as a first result group, first pairs of data among the plurality of pairs of data that have greatest confidence values, wherein a number of the first pairs of data is defined to be greater than 1 and smaller than a predetermined first number (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
identifying, as a second result group, second pairs of data from the first result group that have greatest lift values, wherein a number of the second pairs of data is defined to be not smaller than 1 and smaller than the predetermined first number, (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating the one or more predictions based on the second pairs of data. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory machine-readable media, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
generating a dataset using a plurality of topics associated with a plurality of historical records, respectively, the plurality of historical records are associated with a plurality of user identifiers of different users, the generating including: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
mining transitive relations across the plurality of historical records of the plurality of user identifiers by forming, from the plurality of historical records, each of the pairs of data comprising an antecedent topic associated with a historical record corresponding to a preceding event and a consequent topic associated with a historical record corresponding to an event that occurred after the preceding event (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
aggregating the pairs of data formed from the plurality of historical records of the plurality of user identifiers of different users to create the dataset representing the transitive relations mined jointly across the plurality of user identifiers; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
processing the dataset to generate a filtered dataset comprising transitive relations selected among the aggregated pairs of data, the processing including: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
computing a support value for each pair of data based on a ratio of a number of pairs of data containing a same antecedent topic and a same consequent topic to a total number of the plurality of historical records, (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
filtering the pairs of data by comparing the support value for each pair to a first user-configurable threshold, and retaining pairs with support values exceeding the first user-configurable threshold (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
computing a confidence value for each retained pair based on a ratio of a number of pairs of data including a same antecedent topic followed by a same consequent topic to a number of occurrences of the antecedent topic in the plurality of historical records (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.)
filtering the retained pairs by comparing the confidence value for each pair to a second user-configurable threshold, and preserving pairs with confidence values exceeding the second user-configurable threshold (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
computing a lift value for each preserved pair of data based on a ratio of the confidence value associated with each preserved pair of data to a support value of the consequent topic (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.)
filtering the preserved pairs by comparing the lift value for each pair to a third user-configurable threshold, and retaining final pairs with lift values exceeding the third user-configurable threshold, and including the final pairs in the filtered dataset; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating, one or more predictions of one or more next record topics for a next record corresponding to the user identifier the generating including matching the input topic to antecedent topics in the final pairs, selecting consequent topics associated with matched pairs, and prioritizing the consequent topics based on corresponding confidence values and lift values, wherein the next record corresponds to a second event; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
A computer-program product tangibly embodied in one or more non-transitory machine-readable media including instructions configured to cause one or more data processors to perform a method including: (The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computer) such than it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components MPEP § 2106.05(b))
storing the filtered dataset and support, confidence, and lift values in a storage subsystem; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
retrieving, from the storage subsystem, the stored filtered dataset, the confidence values, and the lift values, for input into a machine learning (ML) model incorporated into the record topic prediction system; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
inputting, into ML model, the filtered dataset, the confidence values, the lift values, and an input topic, among the plurality of topics, the input topic being which is associated with a record of a particular user, the record of the particular user corresponding to a first event and being associated with a user identifier for the particular user, wherein the ML model is a single model configured to jointly process the plurality of user identifiers using the filtered dataset representing the transitive relations mined across the plurality of user identifiers; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
generating, by the ML model using the transitive relations represented in the filtered dataset and mined jointly across the plurality of user identifiers (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting, by the record topic prediction system, the one or more predictions to an external device over a communication network, (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
wherein the antecedent topic and the consequent topic are included in the plurality of topics. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A computer-program product tangibly embodied in one or more non-transitory machine-readable media including instructions configured to cause one or more data processors to perform a method including: (The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computer) such than it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components MPEP § 2106.05(b))
storing the filtered dataset and support, confidence, and lift values in a storage subsystem; (Storing and retrieving information in memory (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv))
retrieving, from the storage subsystem, the stored filtered dataset, the confidence values, and the lift values, for input into a machine learning (ML) model incorporated into the record topic prediction system; (Storing and retrieving information in memory (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv))
inputting, into ML model, the filtered dataset, the confidence values, the lift values, and an input topic, among the plurality of topics, the input topic being which is associated with a record of a particular user, the record of the particular user corresponding to a first event and being associated with a user identifier for the particular user, wherein the ML model is a single model configured to jointly process the plurality of user identifiers using the filtered dataset representing the transitive relations mined across the plurality of user identifiers; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
generating, by the ML model using the transitive relations represented in the filtered dataset and mined jointly across the plurality of user identifiers (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting, by the record topic prediction system, the one or more predictions to an external device over a communication network, (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
wherein the antecedent topic and the consequent topic are included in the plurality of topics. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a method of predictive modeling, this is nothing more than using machine learning models to classify the provided data. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 incorporates the rejections of claim 15.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory machine-readable media, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 15 are incorporated.
forming each of the pairs of data to include a first topic of the topics that is associated with a first time point on the timeline and a second topic of the topics that is associated with a second time point on the timeline that is later in time than the first time point, as the antecedent topic and the consequent topic, respectively. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
obtaining historical reports for the plurality of user identifiers, respectively, each respective historical report including topics associated with a respective historical record for one of the plurality of user identifiers, the topics being arranged in a sequence based on a timeline, wherein the topics are included in the plurality of topics (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining historical reports for the plurality of user identifiers, respectively, each respective historical report including topics associated with a respective historical record for one of the plurality of user identifiers, the topics being arranged in a sequence based on a timeline, wherein the topics are included in the plurality of topics (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Claim 20 incorporates the rejections of claim 15.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory machine-readable media, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 15 are incorporated.
wherein the one or more pairs of data are included in a plurality of pairs of data, and the generating the one or more predictions further includes: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
ordering the plurality of pairs of data in an order of decreasing confidence values (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
identifying, as a first result group, first pairs of data among the plurality of pairs of data that have greatest confidence values, wherein a number of the first pairs of data is defined to be greater than 1 and smaller than a predetermined first number (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
identifying, as a second result group, second pairs of data from the first result group that have greatest lift values, wherein a number of the second pairs of data is defined to be not smaller than 1 and smaller than the predetermined first number, (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating the one or more predictions based on the second pairs of data. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 21 incorporates the rejections of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated.
the mining further comprises forming topic sequences, each of the topic sequences including an antecedent topic and at least two consequent topics corresponding to historical records occurring after the antecedent topic, the pairs of data being included in the topic sequences (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
the generating the one or more predictions further comprises using the topic sequences to predict a sequence of two or more potential next record topics following the input topic and outputting an ordered list of the predicted sequence of the two or more potential next record topics. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical applications.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ALLMAN THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. ET..
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/K.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights