DETAILED ACTION
1. The office action is responsive to the application filed on 06/16/23. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 USC § 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.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
The claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. The analysis follows the two-step test set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012).
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claim recites a “system comprising… processing devices.” This falls within the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Directed to a Judicial Exception
The claim is directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and reporting data using mathematical models.
Specifically, the claim recites:
1. Collecting information: “receiving data for a metric… receiving input defining a second time segment.”
2. Analyzing information: “computing a baseline value… generating… one or more drift observations that quantify a magnitude.”
3. Presenting results: “outputting a report that includes the one or more drift observations.”
These limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping (evaluating metrics and drift is a fundamental business or administrative practice) and the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping (computing values and quantifying magnitudes are mathematical relationships/formulas).
The claim is similar to the claims in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the court found that collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis are abstract ideas. It is also similar to SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results was held to be abstract.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a Practical Application
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites a “metric evaluation system implemented by one or more processing devices.” These are generic computer components invoked merely as a tool to perform the abstract data analysis. The claim does not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer, nor does it effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing.
While the claim recites a “trained drift attribution model,” the claim does not provide specific technical details regarding how the model is trained, its specific architecture, or how it operates differently from standard statistical modeling. The model is used simply to “quantify a magnitude,” which is a mathematical calculation. Merely applying an abstract idea using a computer or a mathematical model does not render the claim eligible (Alice).
Step 2B: Significantly More
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in the claim are:
1. “System comprising… processing devices”
2. “Receiving data/input”
3. “Outputting a report”
These elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. “Receiving data” and “outputting a report” are generic data processing steps. The use of “processing devices” is a recitation of a generic computer environment.
Viewed as an ordered combination, these elements add nothing more than the instruction to apply the abstract idea of analyzing metric drift on a generic computer system. As held in Alice, stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it” (or “apply it with a computer”) is not enough for patent eligibility.
Conclusion: The claim is directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept to transform the idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claims 12 and 18 both limit to a drift attribution model with abstract concerns similar to that of claim 1 and are thereby rejected under 35 USC 101. Dependent claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-20 do not provide further limitations to the respective independent claims to correct the independent claim and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC 101.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by:
1. Amending the claim to include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept
2.Presenting evidence that the claimed invention improves computer technology or another technical field
3. Arguing that the claim is directed to a specific technological implementation rather than the abstract idea itself
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph P. Hirl whose telephone number is (571)272-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30 am to 3:30 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 Director, Amy C. Johnson can be reached on 571-272-2238. 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/patentcenter 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.
/JOSEPH P HIRL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435