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 .
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, 8, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, Claim 1 is a method; claim 8 is a non-transitory computer readable medium; and claim 15 is a system/apparatus. Thus, each claim 1, 8, 15, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1, 8, 15, [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements as noted and analyzed under step 2A prong two and step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of:
(a) obtaining… raw revenue data from a revenue database;
(b)calculating estimated values for missing data in the raw revenue data and removing outliers from the raw revenue data to obtain estimated values;
(c) calculating time series parameters for the raw revenue data: calculating statistical data for the raw revenue data;
(d) saving the estimated values, the time series parameters, and the statistical data;
(e) receiving historical revenue data, wherein the historical revenue data comprises the raw revenue data, the estimated values, the time series parameters, and the statistical data;
(f) generating a plurality of predictions using the historical revenue data as input to a plurality of models, wherein the plurality of models comprises a seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average model, a trigonometric seasonality, box-cox transformation, ARMA errors, trend, seasonal components (TBATS) model, and a time series linear model;
(g) determining, for each of the plurality of models, an error based on the historical revenue data and the plurality of predictions;
(h) identifying a first model from the plurality of models associated with the lowest error, wherein the first model comprises the TBATS model;
(i) obtaining, by a computing device and using the first model, conventional prediction data based on historical revenue data, wherein the conventional prediction data is for a future time period;
(j) receiving first sales pipeline data from a sale pipeline, wherein the first sales pipeline data is associated with the future time period;
(k) generating first distributed prediction data, using a plurality of distributed models, wherein each of the plurality of distributed models uses a separate subset of the first sales pipeline data as an input to generate a corresponding separate subset of the first distributed prediction data;
(l) generating a composite prediction data by aggregating the conventional prediction data and the first distributed prediction data by applying weights to each portion of the conventional prediction data and the first distributed prediction data, wherein the weights are based on which model of the first model and the plurality of distributed models were used to generate each portion of the conventional prediction data and the first distributed prediction data.
which are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mathematical concepts.
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
The phrase "Mathematical concepts" applies to mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. A-C.
The phrase "Mental processes" applies to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. A-C.
The abstract elements of the claim are group as follows:
(a)-(d) “obtaining…calculating…calculating…saving” - "Certain methods of organizing human activity" by fundamental economic practice of revenue management/tracking
(e) “receiving…” – "Certain methods of organizing human activity" by coordinated exchange of historical revenue data information from stakeholders (commercial or legal interactions). (Application Speciation Paragraph 0029: “The model described herein utilizes conventional historical revenue data in addition to metrics of the sales pipeline…”)
(f) “generating a plurality of…” – "Mathematical concepts" by using time series models to generate predictions (Application Speciation Paragraph 0042: “In one or more embodiments, conventional model parameters(272) provide instructions (to the conventional forecast generator) on how to calculate conventional prediction data(276). The conventional model parameters(272) may specify one or more univariate time series analysis techniques including (i) Prophet, (ii) seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA), (iii) TBATS (trigonometric seasonality, box-cox transformation, ARMA errors, trend, seasonal components), (iv) time series linear model (TSLM), or multivariate techniques (long short-term memory (LSTM)).”)
(g) “determining…” – "Mathematical concepts" by calculating an error (Application Specifying Paragraph 0064: “. An error calculation is then made for each of the conventional prediction datasets (e.g., Prophet, SARIMA, TBATS, TSLM, LSTM) to identify which conventional prediction data was the most accurate (having the lowest error).”)
(h) “identifying…” – "Mathematical concepts" and "Mental processes" making a numerical comparison and then making a judgement on the lowest error.
(i) “obtaining…” – "Mathematical concepts" by using data and a model to generate an output.
(j) “receiving first sales pipeline data…” – "Certain methods of organizing human activity" by following rules and instructions (managing personal behavior…)
(k) “generating first distributed prediction data…” – "Mathematical concepts" by using data and models to generate outputs.
(l) “generating a composite prediction data…” – "Mathematical concepts" using the outputs of two or more models’ outputs to generate an output.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract recitation, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1, 8, 15 at least are databases, obtaining data every 10 milliseconds (i.e., computer environment), computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform (per claim 8) and computing system executable by a processor with a memory device (per claim 15).
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computing device or components of a generic device. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Fig. 1 and 5, and their associated disclosure. Further, gathering data such as acquiring and displaying data are insignificant extra solution activity such as pre-solution activity e.g data gathering (performed by receiving/sending/transmitting/acquiring/extracting/parsing/etc.) and post-solution activity e.g. outputting/displaying-on-GUI/interface (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to generate prediction data using conventional and commonplace models, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it (using models), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group)
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of generating prediction data based on obtained historical revenue data by aggregating and weighting data from two sales data pipelines, calculating the error between revenue data and predicted data from two models, and making a determination which error is smaller is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1, 8, 15, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of generating prediction data based on obtained historical revenue data by aggregating and weighting data from two sales data pipelines, calculating the error between revenue data and predicted data from two models, and making a determination which error is smaller has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant extra solution activity such as pre-solution activity e.g. data gathering or post solution activity e.g. displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on as-filed disclosure, court cases, publication(s), and/or official notice below to demonstrate that such a way to gather data is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here at least per claim 8, historical revenue data is received from sales pipelines by a second computing device].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's amendments merely added to the abstract idea except for the pipeline database, wherein a generic database is considered as apply it and/or generally linking under additional element analysis of the 101 subject matter eligibility. The rejection is maintained. Further, Applicant’s claimed invention does not pertain to the fact pattern of Example 39 or Enfish case.
Conclusion
Closest prior art to the invention includes Linquist et al. (U.S. 7,797,182), Dan et al. (US 2019/0034821) as applied in the previous rejections and additionally:
Villars et al (US 20160125433 A1), regarding “Each time series variable may be calculated based on transaction data in the transaction data entries 210 of the transaction database 208 of the processing server 102 or the data points in the supplemental data entries 214 of the supplemental database 212. For instance, in the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the table 402 includes three time series variables calculated from transaction data, average spend amount, average number of transactions, and average ticket size, and two time series variables calculated from supplemental data, GDP change and average temperature.”
Gupta et al, (US 20230051457 A1), regarding “For instance, if it takes a certain write transaction 10 milliseconds to complete from receiving a request to write data from first network-based service 302, network-based service model 308 may ensure that the corresponding response is provided to first network-based service 302 at least 10 milliseconds from receiving the request.”
Geng et al (US 11501100 B1), Regarding “To account for this common appraiser behavior, the clustering component 22 may exclude from consideration “outlier” comparables that are based on relatively old transactions, such as transactions more than 3 years before the date of the appraisal report.”,
Scavo (US 20210350465 A1), regarding “outliers and duplicates may be removed, and a filter operation may be performed for a consistent number of transactions, to produce an optimal panel”, and
MA et al (SG 11202011053V A), regarding “In one embodiment illustrated herein, each trading center may start a time count at the time instant TO when pushing the transaction quote information synchronously to local user terminals in communication therewith and receive trade orders submitted by these user terminals within a 10-millisecond period after the time instant TO”.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624