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 1-2,4-8 and 10-12 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, Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are a method; and claims 7-8 and 10-12 are a system/apparatus. Thus, each claim 1-2,4-8 and 10-12, 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 1-2,4-8 and 10-12 [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 “receiving at least one target variable and at least one feature corresponding to the at least one target variable, wherein the at least one target variable indicates an attribute represented in the data model and the at least one feature indicates representation of properties corresponding to the data model; performing a classification for the at least one target variable, wherein the classification indicates classifying the at least one target variable into a one or more states; receiving a user-defined trend of interest specifying a transition pattern of interest for generating the trend forecast based on the one or more states, wherein the one or more states are adjusted based on the user-defined trend of interest by modifying a threshold value for classifying the at least one target variable into the one or more states based on a semantic pattern indicated in the user-defined trend of interest; determining a state transition for the one or more states based on the classification, wherein the state transition indicates a probability value of transition between each of the one or more states; selecting a subset of features from the at least one feature for generating the explanation using a sparse feature selection architecture and generating the trend forecast and an explanation of the trend forecast based on the state transition, a transition probability score corresponding to the user-defined trend of interest, and the subset of features.” which is mental processes, 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) “receiving at least one target variable and at least one feature corresponding to the at least one target variable, wherein the at least one target variable indicates an attribute represented in the data model and the at least one feature indicates representation of properties corresponding to the data model;” – "Certain methods of organizing human activity" by imply transmitting information from one party to another.
(b) “performing a classification for the at least one target variable, wherein the classification indicates classifying the at least one target variable into a one or more states;” – "Mathematical concepts" and "Mental processes" by using a Markov-chain model for classifying (i.e., a mathematical concept) and using judgment to set the limits/boundaries that classify target variable(s) into states.
(Paragraph 0063: “In some embodiments, the method 300 may include, applying, by the classification module 116, the Markov-chain model for classifying the target variable such that the target variable with continuous variables is classified into one or more states of discrete variables.”; and Paragraph 0045: “For example, the temperature may be classified as in the state of high if the temperature is greater than 100°C, medium if temperature is between 50°C - 100°C and low if temperature is below 50°C. Thus, the target variable, i.e., the temperature is classified into the one or more states as provided to the input module 114 and in accordance with the logic of the predefined condition(s) provided as input.”)
(c) “receiving a user-defined trend of interest specifying a transition pattern of interest for generating the trend forecast based on the one or more states, wherein the one or more states are adjusted based on the user-defined trend of interest by modifying a threshold value for classifying the at least one target variable into the one or more states based on a semantic pattern indicated in the user-defined trend of interest;” – "Certain methods of organizing human activity" by imply transmitting information from one party to another and by following rules and instructions to adjust/modify states.
(d) “determining a state transition for the one or more states based on the classification, wherein the state transition indicates a probability value of transition between each of the one or more states;” – "Mathematical concepts" by applying a Markov-chain model for determining the state transition probability matrix (i.e., a mathematical concept). (Paragraph 0047: “In an exemplary embodiment, the classification module 116 may be configured to apply the Markov-chain model to determine a state transition or the state transition probability matrix based on the one or more states based on the classification of the target variable from the data model into one or more states.”)
(e) “selecting, …, a subset of features from the at least one feature for generating the explanation using a sparse feature selection architecture” – Mathematical concepts" and "Mental processes"
(f) “generating the trend forecast and an explanation of the trend forecast based on the state transition, a transition probability score corresponding to the user-defined trend of interest, and the subset of features.” – Mathematical concepts" and "Mental processes" by using a Markov-chain model to generate a forecast a trend (i.e., a mathematical concept) and using some type of evaluation and/or judgment to supply a user-defined trend as input and generate an explanation of the trend forecast. Also, note that the explanation of the generated trend forecast could also be derived from the mathematical concepts of SHAP Values and explanations derived from that method would also include evaluations/judgments (Paragraph 0066: “At step 308, the method 300 may include generating, …, the trend forecast based on the transition probability score and the user-defined trend input.”; and Paragraph 0068: “In some embodiments, the method 300 may include generating, …, the explanation of the generated trend forecast based on the selected feature. In an example, the SHAP technique is used to generate explanation of the generated trend forecast.”)
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 1-2,4-8 and 10-12 at least are a computing system executable by a processor, computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform, LassoNet (per claim 7-8 and 10-12). Remaining claims, namely 1-2 and 4-6, either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
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, “A system for generating a trend forecast and an explanation of the trend forecast of a data model, the system comprises: a memory; at least one processor communicably coupled to the memory, the at least one processor is configured to:”, “a computer”, are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, LassoNet is generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1, 2, 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 receiving data via a database and/or network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide a trend forecast, 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 receiving information, analyzing it (using models), and outputting/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 a trend forecast and an explanation of the trend forecast of a data model representing a process based on state transitions using a Markov Chain Model framework
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 1-2,4-8 and 10-12, 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 a trend forecast and an explanation of the trend forecast of a data model representing a process based on state transitions using a Markov Chain Model framework 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 and/or “generally linking” to a particular technological environment. 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. outputting/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/receive data and/or output/transmit/display information 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 1, target variable and feature variable data is received from a possible second computing system containing a database];
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
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/15/26 have been fully considered and found to be insufficient and unpersuasive to overcome all of the rejections. Details are provided below.
Arguments on rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s arguments are geared towards newly added/amended limitations specifically the use of lassoNet which is generally linking the abstract idea toa particular technology which do not provide a practical application or significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(h))
Conclusion
Closest prior art to the invention includes Alevizos et al. (EP3955176A1), Romanowsky et al. (US 2021/0390457) and Keenan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2011/0246386). None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches the claimed invention wherein the novelty is in the combination of all limitations and not in a single limitation.
Additional prior art not relied upon includes:
LI (US-20220277329-A1) “In some embodiments, each trajectory of a vehicle may be modeled by a semi-Markov decision process (MDP) framework, with a software agent (the agent) representing the vehicle. The MDP framework may be defined by a plurality of key components, such as state, action option, reward, and transition, which are defined as below… Transition: the transition of the aforementioned agent given a state and a repositioning option is deterministic, while the transition probability for a given dispatching option P(s′ |s, o.sub.d) is the probability of a trip going to s′ given s being assigned to the agent.”
Adulyasak (US-10977609-B1) “According to an embodiment, a stockout probability may be calculated according to a transition matrix that describes the probability of an item in an inventory moving from a first state to a second or more states. According to the matrix, as will be explained more fully below, one matrix per order action q is defined because the action changes the probability of transition between states. Each pair of state and order action is associated to a vector of probabilities of transition to another state. By summing the probabilities over one or more backlog states, the stockout probability for an initial state i and order quantity q combination is determined. When the probability of a stockout is more than 1 minus the target service level, a large penalty may be added to the cost parameter, c.sub.iq.sup.t.” 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