DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy CN-202310409827.7, filed on April 18, 2023, has been electronically retrieved by USPTO.
Response to Amendments
The Amendment filed May 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 7-11, 12-14, 18-29, remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments:
-Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections on page 14 of the applicant remarks, the examiner respectfully submits regarding the statement “The recited architecture cannot reasonably be viewed as a mental process. Amended claim 1 recites coordination of multiple machine learning models across a plurality of states using live data, including updating probabilistic weights based on that data, which cannot practically be performed in the human mind,” the examiner submits that the limitation of claim 1 of “generating… states based on a contextual condition used for prediction… the states partitioning the contextual condition into a plurality of alternative state values” is considered a mental process since this can be done mentally with pen and paper by writing down different states or values that a variable takes for models.
Regarding the applicant’s statement on page 15 first half paragraph stating “it is integrated into a practical application as relevant to Prong 2 of Step 2A. As explained in the Application, the claimed invention provides an architecture that addresses "many disadvantages of the existing ML engines" and "provide[s] an ML engine that responds rapidly, accurately and efficiently to environmental changes." Application, [0010],” the examiner submits that the improvements described in remarks are not reflected by the claim limitations.
Regarding the applicant’s statement on page 15 in the first full paragraph that stated “For example, "[a] first technical advantage of the present disclosure is related to the nature of input data." Id., [0020]. "[T]he ML engine of the present disclosure can rely on live data to determine states and thus selected models" and therefore "the prediction by the present disclosure can better reflect and respond to the current environment." Id. As another example, "[a] second technical advantage of the present disclosure attributes to the processing of input data. In the models of the present disclosure, data will undergo different states as part of the data generation process,” the examiner submits that since the statement regarding “better reflect and respond to the current environment” was not reflected in the claim limitations. Regarding the second advantage of data undergoing different states, this is considered a mental process that is able to be evaluated mentally by writing down with pen and paper different states or values a variable can take for models.
Regarding the applicant’s statement on page 15 in the second full paragraph that stated a “third technical advantage of the present disclosure is associated with the breadth of the ML engine. Unlike the cited references, the ML engine of the present disclosure does not focus on evaluating a single model at a time. Instead, it can generate different models and manipulate different variables simultaneously,” the examiner submits that the statement of generating and manipulating different variables simultaneously were neither reflected nor were expressed in the claim limitations.
Regarding the applicant’s statement on page 15 in the second full paragraph that stated a “fourth technical advantage of the present disclosure attributes to the feedback mechanism with rewards/penalties to states to reflect the evaluation results of previous predictions, thus offering the possibility to dynamically tune and optimize the ML engine." Id., [0023],” the examiner submits that the statement of dynamically tuning and optimizing a machine learning engine is able to be performed by a generic computer, and without further describing the rewards and penalties to states, this examiner was not able to find from this element an improvement or application that connects to the invention. The examiner applies a similar response regarding dependent claims 3 and 14 regarding “updating the respective probabilistic weights through rewards or penalties based on the evaluation results, thereby tuning the predictive engine” in paragraph 3 of page 16 of applicant’s remarks.
Regarding the applicant’s remarks from pages 16 -17 with respect to claim 1 elements, including stating “Amended claim 1 defines a non-generic arrangement of components and operations that improves the functionality of predictive systems by enabling context-aware machine learning model selection and adaptive, live data-driven prediction behavior. The amended claims therefore do not merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components, but instead recite a particular technological solution that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional,” the examiner submits that some elements of claim 1 such as the “the predictive engine including a data preparator, an algorithm component, and a serving component” were considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components
that are able to perform operations for machine learning models. The well-understood, routine activities are receiving data, since any model or system can receive data to process this into their workflow.
With regards to the above statements, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are maintained. See 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for more information.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments:
-Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
1. The examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1-3, 7-11, 12-14, 18-29.
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 1-3, 7-11, 12-14, 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Regarding claim 1, in step 1 of the 101-analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites
“A computer-implemented method for operating a predictive engine, the predictive engine including a data preparator, an algorithm component, and a serving component, the method comprising: receiving, via an input interface of the predictive engine, data;
automatically preprocessing, by the data preparator of the predictive engine, the data to extract feature values and form a feature set, …” and a method is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A prong 1 of the 101-analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
generating, … a plurality of states based on a contextual condition used for prediction by the predictive engine, the states partitioning the contextual condition into a plurality of alternative state values; (This is considered a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and generate states from a context condition, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
assigning, … one or more of the candidate machine learning models to each of the states; (This recites a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and assign a model each of the states, which in the specification paragraphs [0014-0017], state is considered to be a variable type either numeric or categorical, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
for each of the states, evaluating, … the assigned candidate machine learning models using one or more performance metrics; (This recites a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate models using performance metrics, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
for each of the states, selecting, …, based on the evaluation, a top-ranked machine learning model from among the candidate machine learning models assigned to the respective state; (This recites a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and select a top-ranked model, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
generating, by the selected top-ranked machine learning model for each of the states, a respective state-specific prediction result based on the live data; (This recites a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and generate a state-specific prediction result from viewing live data, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
ensembling, …, the state-specific prediction results using the respective probabilistic weights to generate an ensembled prediction result; (This is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate and ensemble or group model results using respective probabilistic weights, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
determining, …, according to the live data and the feature set, a respective probabilistic weight for each of the states, each respective probabilistic weight representing a probability that the respective state is a current state according to the live data; (This is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate and determine respective probabilistic weights for each of the states, which in the specification paragraphs [0014-0017], state is considered to be a variable type either numeric or categorical, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In step 2A prong 2 of the 101-analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
A computer-implemented method for operating, (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered using a generic computer as a tool – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
a predictive engine the predictive engine including a data preparator, an algorithm component, and a serving component, (This is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
the method comprising: receiving, via an input interface of the predictive engine, data; (This recites data receiving, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
automatically preprocessing, by the data preparator of the predictive engine, the data to extract feature values and form a feature set; (This is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
constructing, by the algorithm component of the predictive engine and based on the feature set, a plurality of candidate machine learning models having different engine structures and parameter sets; (This is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
…by the algorithm component of the predictive engine, (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
…by the serving component of the predictive engine (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
deploying, by the algorithm component of the predictive engine, the selected top-ranked machine learning models for each of the states to a live engine for processing live data, (In step 2A, prong 2, this recites mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
receiving, via the input interface of the predictive engine, live data; (This recites data receiving, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
and serving, by the serving component of the predictive engine, the ensembled prediction results as an output of the predictive engine, (This recites data outputting, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In step 2B of the 101-analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, additional element viii recites a generic computer as a tool, and additional elements ix, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, and xv and recite mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, which are not indicative of significantly more. The additional element x, xvi, and xvii recite mere data gathering or outputting, and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. In step 2B, this insignificant extra-solution activity is well understood routine and conventional activity which includes receiving or transmitting data over a network from court case 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), – see MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)(i)), as well as see court case Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3))).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
Regarding claim 2, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 2 recites the following abstract idea:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: evaluating, … a performance of the output, the selected top-ranked machine learning model for each of the states, and the respective probabilistic weight for each of the states, by computing one or more evaluation results based on at least one evaluation metric using the ensembled prediction result and one or more observed outcomes corresponding to the live data, (this is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate, perform model selection, and generate and later evaluate a performance output using pen and paper, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Further, claim 2 also recites an additional element:
… by an evaluator component of the predictive engine, (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
Regarding claim 3, it is dependent upon claim 2, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 2. Further, claim 3 recites the following additional element:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: updating, by the algorithm component of the predictive engine, (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered using a generic computer as a tool – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this also recites using a generic computer as a tool – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
the respective probabilistic weights for each of the states through rewards or penalties based on the one or more evaluation results, thereby tuning the predictive engine, (In step 2A, prong 2, tuning the predictive engine and updating probabilistic weights according to performance is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7:
Regarding claim 7, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 7 recites the following additional element:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the contextual condition is one of a number of years and months that machine components have been in operation, an outdoor temperature, and/or an outdoor humidity, or another indicator of the status of a plant machine, and wherein the predictive engine is used… (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 7 recites the following abstract idea:
predict productivity of the plant or a probability of the machine requiring maintenance, (This is considered a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and predict productivity of the plant or a probability of the machine requiring maintenance, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8:
Regarding claim 8, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 8 recites the following additional element:
The method according to claim 1, wherein contextual condition is one of applications open on a computer, time of day, and/or working hours, or another indicator of the status of the computer, and wherein the predictive engine is used, (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 8 recites the following abstract idea:
predict the purpose or task of a user using the computer, (This is considered a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and predict the purpose or task of a user using the computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9:
Regarding claim 9, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 9 recites the following additional element:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the contextual condition is one of traffic conditions on each route, the date, and/or whether it is a holiday, or another indicator of the status of traffic, and wherein the predictive engine is used, (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 9 recites the following abstract idea:
predict a probability of traffic congestion, (This is considered a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and predict a probability of traffic congestion, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10:
Regarding claim 10, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 10 recites the following additional element:
The method according to claim 1, wherein contextual condition is one of a type of spending and/or a level of spending, or another indicator of spending appetite of consumers, and wherein the predictive engine is used…, (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 10 recites the following abstract idea:
predict a probability of the consumers shopping online, (This is considered a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and predict a probability of the consumers shopping online, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11:
Regarding claim 11, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 11 recites the following additional element:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the contextual condition is market or financial conditions, and wherein the predictive engine is used, (In step 2A, prong 2, using a predictive engine is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 11 recites the following abstract idea:
predict asset prices or risks, or is used to predict a risk of lending to a company or to predict a stock price of the company, (this is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate and predict prices or risks (seen as quantitative amounts or numbers), see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12:
Regarding claim 12, in step 1 of the 101-analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites “A system for operating a predictive engine, comprising: a processor; a computer-readable working memory; a predictive engine stored in the working memory, the predictive engine including a data preparator, an algorithm component, and a serving component;
and a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium for storing program codes …”, and a system is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A prong 1 of the 101-analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
generating, … a plurality of states based on a contextual condition used for prediction by the predictive engine, the states partitioning the contextual condition into a plurality of alternative state values; (This is considered a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and generate states from a context condition, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
assigning, … one or more of the candidate machine learning models to each of the states; (This recites a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and assign a model each of the states, which in the specification paragraphs [0014-0017], state is considered to be a variable type either numeric or categorical, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
for each of the states, evaluating, … the assigned candidate machine learning models using one or more performance metrics; (This recites a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate models using performance metrics, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
for each of the states, selecting, …, based on the evaluation, a top-ranked machine learning model from among the candidate machine learning models assigned to the respective state; (This recites a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and select a top-ranked model, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
generating, by the selected top-ranked machine learning model for each of the states, a respective state-specific prediction result based on the live data; (This recites a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and generate a state-specific prediction result from viewing live data, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
ensembling, …, the state-specific prediction results using the respective probabilistic weights to generate an ensembled prediction result; (This is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate and ensemble or group model results using respective probabilistic weights, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
determining, …, according to the live data and the feature set, a respective probabilistic weight for each of the states, each respective probabilistic weight representing a probability that the respective state is a current state according to the live data; (This is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate and determine respective probabilistic weights for each of the states, which in the specification paragraphs [0014-0017], state is considered to be a variable type either numeric or categorical, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In step 2A prong 2 of the 101-analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
a system for operating a predictive engine, comprising a processor; (This is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
a computer-readable working memory; (This is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
a predictive engine stored in the working memory; (This is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
and a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium for storing program codes, the stored codes being capable, when executed by the processor, of causing the following steps to be performed, (This is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
receiving, via an input interface of the predictive engine, data; (This recites data receiving, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
automatically preprocessing, by the data preparator of the predictive engine, the data to extract feature values and form a feature set; (This is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
constructing, by the algorithm component of the predictive engine and based on the feature set, a plurality of candidate machine learning models having different engine structures and parameter sets; (This is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
…by the algorithm component of the predictive engine, (In step 2A, prong 2, This is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
…by the serving component of the predictive engine (In step 2A, prong 2, This is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
deploying, by the algorithm component of the predictive engine, the selected top-ranked machine learning models for each of the states to a live engine for processing live data; (This is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
receiving, via the input interface of the predictive engine, live data; (This recites data receiving, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
and serving, by the serving component of the predictive engine, the ensembled prediction results as an output of the predictive engine, (This recites data outputting, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In step 2B of the 101-analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, additional elements viii, ix, x, xi, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, and xvii, recite mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, which are not indicative of significantly more. The additional element xii, xviii, and xviii recite mere data gathering or outputting, and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. In step 2B, this insignificant extra-solution activity is well understood routine and conventional activity which includes receiving or transmitting data over a network from court case 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), – see MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)(i)), as well as see court case Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3))).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13:
Regarding claim 13, it is dependent upon claim 12, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 12. Further, claim 13 recites the following abstract idea:
The system according to claim 12, wherein the method further comprises: evaluating, … a performance of the output, the selected top-ranked machine learning model for each of the states, and the respective probabilistic weight for each of the states, by computing one or more evaluation results based on at least one evaluation metric using the ensembled prediction result and one or more observed outcomes corresponding to the live data, (this is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate, perform model selection, and generate and later evaluate a performance output using pen and paper, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
Further, claim 13 recites the following additional element:
by an evaluator component of the predictive engine, (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14:
Regarding claim 14, it is dependent upon claim 13, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 13. Further, claim 14 recites the following additional element:
The system according to claim 13, wherein the steps further comprise: updating by the algorithm component of the predictive engine, the respective probabilistic weights of for each of the states through rewards or penalties based on the one or more evaluation results, thereby tuning the predictive engine, (In step 2A, prong 2, tuning the predictive engine and updating probabilistic weights for each state according to performance is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer, the algorithm component recites using a generic computer as a tool – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18:
Regarding claim 18, it is dependent upon claim 12, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 12. Further, claim 18 recites the following additional element:
The system according to claim 12, wherein the contextual condition, is one of a number of years and months that machine components have been in operation, an outdoor temperature, an outdoor humidity, or another indicator of the status of a plant machine, and wherein the predictive engine is used…, (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 18 recites the following abstract idea:
… predict productivity of the plant or a probability of the machine requiring maintenance. (This is considered a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and predict productivity of the plant or a probability of the machine requiring maintenance, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19:
Regarding claim 19, it is dependent upon claim 12, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 12. Further, claim 19 recites the following additional element:
The system according to claim 12, wherein the contextual condition is one of applications already open on a computer, time of day, working hours, or another indicator of the status of the computer, and wherein the predictive engine is used (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 19 recites the following abstract idea:
… predict the purpose or task of a user using the computer, (This is considered a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and predict the purpose or task of a user using the computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20:
Regarding claim 20, it is dependent upon claim 12, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 12. Further, claim 20 recites the following additional element:
The system according to claim 12, wherein the contextual condition is one of traffic conditions on each route, a date, and/or whether it is a holiday, or another indicator of the status of traffic, and wherein the predictive engine is used, (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 20 recites the following abstract idea:
predict a probability of traffic congestion, (This is considered a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and predict a probability of traffic congestion, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 21:
Regarding claim 21, it is dependent upon claim 12, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 12. Further, claim 21 recites the following additional element:
The system according to claim 12, wherein the contextual condition is one of a type of spending, a level of spending, or another indicator of spending appetite of consumers, and wherein the predictive engine is used…, (In step 2A, prong 2, this is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 21 recites the following abstract idea:
… predict a probability of the consumers shopping online, (This is considered a mental process, a person can mentally evaluate and predict a probability of the consumers shopping online, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22:
Regarding claim 22, it is dependent upon claim 12, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 12. Further, claim 22 recites the following additional element:
The system according to claim 12, wherein the contextual condition is market or financial conditions, and wherein the predictive engine is used, (In step 2A, prong 2, using a predictive engine is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 22 recites the following abstract idea:
…predict asset prices or risks, or is used to predict a risk of lending to a company or to predict a stock price of the company, (this is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate and predict prices or risks (seen as quantitative amounts or numbers), see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 23:
Regarding claim 23, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 23 also recites an additional element:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1 to be performed, (In step 2A, prong 2, having a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recites mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer– see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 24:
Regarding claim 24, it is dependent upon claim 12, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 12. Further, claim 24 recites the following additional element:
The system according to claim 12, wherein the contextual condition comprises a status of a plant machine, and the states correspond to values of one or more indicators of the status of a plant machine, the indicators including a number of years and months that machine components have been in operation, an outdoor temperature, an outdoor humidity, or another indicator of the status of a plant machine, and wherein the predictive engine is used, (In step 2A, prong 2, using a predictive engine as part of the system is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 24 recites the following abstract idea:
… predict productivity of the plant or a probability of the machine requiring maintenance, (this is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate and predict productivity of a plant or predict probability of a machine that needs maintenance, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 25:
Regarding claim 25, it is dependent upon claim 12, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 12. Further, claim 25 recites the following additional element:
The system according to claim 12, wherein the contextual condition is a status of a computer, and the states correspond to values of one or more indicators of the status of the computer, the indicators including applications open on a computer, time of day, working hours, or another indicator of the status of the computer, and wherein the predictive engine is used …(In step 2A, prong 2, using a predictive engine as part of the system is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 25 recites the following abstract idea:
… predict the purpose or task of a user using the computer, (this is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate and predict a purpose or task of a user using the computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 26:
Regarding claim 26, it is dependent upon claim 12, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 12. Further, claim 26 recites the following additional element:
The system according to claim 12, wherein the contextual condition comprises a state of traffic, and the states correspond to values of one or more indicators of the state of traffic, the indicators including traffic conditions on each route, a date, whether it is a holiday, or another indicator of the status of traffic, and wherein the predictive engine is used …(In step 2A, prong 2, using a predictive engine as part of the system is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 26 recites the following abstract idea:
… predict a probability of traffic congestion, (this is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate and predict a probability of traffic congestion, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 27:
Regarding claim 27, it is dependent upon claim 12, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 12. Further, claim 27 recites the following additional element:
The system according to claim 12, wherein the contextual condition is a spending appetite of consumers, and the states correspond to values of one or more indicators of the spending appetite of consumers, the indicators including a type of spending, a level of spending, or another indicator of spending appetite of consumers, and wherein the predictive engine is used … (In step 2A, prong 2, using a predictive engine as part of the system is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Further, claim 27 recites the following abstract idea:
… predict a probability of the consumers shopping online, (this is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate and predict a probability of consumers shopping online, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 28:
Regarding claim 28, it is dependent upon claim 12, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 12. Claim 28 recites the following abstract idea:
predict asset prices or risks (this is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate and predict asset prices or risks, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
… predict a risk of lending to a company or to predict a stock price of the company, (this is considered a mental process, since a person can mentally evaluate and predict a risk of lending to a company or to predict a stock price of the company, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
Further, claim 28 recites the following additional element:
The system according to claim 12, wherein the contextual condition is market or financial conditions, and the states correspond to values of one or more indicators of market or financial conditions, and wherein the predictive engine is used … (In step 2A, prong 2, using a predictive engine as part of the system is considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 29:
Regarding claim 29, it is dependent upon claim 12, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 12. Further, claim 29 recites the following additional element:
The system according to claim 28, wherein the one or more indicators of market or financial conditions include inflation data, employment data, purchasing managers' index data, manufacturing-level data, market-condition data, or another financial or macroeconomic indicator, (In step 2A, prong 2, this recites mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (In step 2B, this is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer – see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WENWEI ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-7111. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at (571) 272-4046. 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.
/WenWei Zeng/Examiner, Art Unit 2146
/USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights