DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the amendment filed 15 September 2025. It is noted that this application benefits from Foreign Priority to Chinese Patent Application Serial No. 202210532391.6 filed 11 May 2022. Claims 2-3, 5, 11-12, and 14 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, a5, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15-19 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[3] Applicant's remarks filed 15 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks will be addressed below in the order in which they appear in the noted response.
[i] In response to rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 (now claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15-19 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 18 June 2025, Applicant provides the following remarks:
"…the steps of method for data processing based on data value are implemented by a computer…which cannot be practically performed by human min or with the aid of pencil and paper… "
In response, Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims as presented remain directed to ineligible subject matter. Under Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04):
With respect to Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to ineligible Mathematical Concepts, representative claim 1 as presented by amendment recites:
“…calculating a data Shapley value of each piece of the structured original data based on a utility function associated with a service revenue, wherein in each iteration of calculating the utility function, random permutation is performed on a first set consisting of all the structured original data, and in response to a difference between a utility function value of the first set and a utility function value of a second set consisting of any piece of structured original data and previous elements of the any piece of structured original data being less than a preset threshold, a utility function value of the any piece of structured original data keeps unchanged for a set consisting of the previous elements;…”
Examiner respectfully submits that the steps/function added by amendment provide further clarity with respect to the mathematics performed to identify high-value data. Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited processing steps executed by the recited computer and models (claim 1) and/or the processor, memory, and executable instructions (claims 10 and 19), the recited calculating data Shapley values based on a utility function and further performing random permutations are ineligible mathematical concepts as presented in the claims and further understood in light of the supportive disclosure.
With respect to Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to ineligible processes performable by Human Mental Processing, representative claim 1 as presented by amendment recites:
“…converting each piece of unstructured original data into each piece of structured original data, wherein the unstructured original data comprises at least one of image data, speech data and text data;… acquiring pieces of high-value data from the structured original data based on the data Shapley value of each piece of the structured original data;… acquiring a prediction result for each piece of the high-value data by performing a service prediction…; and allocating a service resource based on the prediction result for each piece of the high-value data…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited computer and models (claim 1) and/or the processor, memory, and executable instructions (claims 10 and 19), given a set of input data, i.e., unstructured original data, and a desired structured data format, one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably relied upon to organize data into a form usable to a uniform mathematical formula or equation. By extension, given the calculated output values, one of ordinary skill would be capable of acquiring or selecting high-quality data based on the calculated values and making a service prediction by inputting the identified data into an applicable mathematical service model employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Applicant remarks:
"…claim 1 is amended to incorporate additional features, which are indicative of a technological improvement compared to the related art…As described in the specification, service data related to at least…optical character recognition, face recognition, object recognition, and picture classification; speech recognition, e.g., natural language processing fused in a voice assistant…claim 1 may convert unstructured original data into structured data…which greatly improves hardware resource efficiency… "
Applicant additionally remarks:
"…as further described in the specification…the calculation complexity of the Shapley value is exponential…amended claim 1 may perform random permutation on a first set consisting of all the structured original data in each iteration of calculating the utility function…the control of algorithm complexity is performed by simplifying data of feature permutation. As such, amended claim 1 may reduce the exponential complexity of Shapley value calculation… "
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to considerations under Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)):
Representative claim 1 retains the additional elements of: computer and models (claim 1) and/or the processor, memory, and executable instructions (claims 10 and 19).
As presented by amendment, representative claim 1 further clarifies mathematical processes applied with respect to selection of high-value data to include:
“…calculating a data Shapley value of each piece of the structured original data based on a utility function associated with a service revenue, wherein in each iteration of calculating the utility function, random permutation is performed on a first set consisting of all the structured original data, and in response to a difference between a utility function value of the first set and a utility function value of a second set consisting of any piece of structured original data and previous elements of the any piece of structured original data being less than a preset threshold, a utility function value of the any piece of structured original data keeps unchanged for a set consisting of the previous elements;…”
Claim 1 as amended further includes a step of:
“…training a service model by using a machine learning algorithm based on the pieces of high-value data…” and “…acquiring a prediction result for each piece of the high-value data by performing a service prediction based on the trained service model…”
Claim 1 further includes a step of:
“…converting each piece of unstructured original data into each piece of structured original data, wherein the unstructured original data comprises at least one of image data, speech data and text data;…”
With respect to the converting of unstructured data into structured data, while Applicant lists technical processes utilized to acquire image and speech data, e.g., OCR, NLP etc. that are disclosed in the specification, the claim limitation is limited to a general statement that image and text data is converted into structured data. Respectfully, absent identification of any technical processes performed to acquire data and convert the data into structured data, a process of generally converting unstructured data into a general structured format is performable by human mental processing, e.g. organizing data into a structured data table.
With respect to the identification using a machine-learning model to train the service model, Examiner notes the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register on 17 July 2024. In particular, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to Example 47, claim 2. Specifically, the instant recitations of “using a machine-learning model” and “training the service model” are analogous to the training of an artificial neural network based on input data and receiving continuous training data of Examiner 47. Reasonably, the training data and feedback data are limited to mere data gathering and generating an output at a high level of generality and, by extension, are reasonably understood to constitute insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recited training process is limited to a recitation of the inputs and outputs to be applied to an undefined training process absent any technical specificity regarding actual training. Accordingly, the recited machine-learning processes and associated training are reasonably understood to be limited to generic machine-learning processes.
With respect to Applicant’s contention that applying a mathematical random permutation and utility function to filter data values that have changed controls algorithmic complexity, Examiner recognizes that filtering data to minimize inputs to any mathematical equation can speed calculation results. Examiner notes that as claimed, the utility function appears to be utilized to filter a first and second set of data to generate a set of data having a changed value. The claim subsequently acquires high-value data form the structured original data. In other words, the filtering by the utility function does not appear to minimize or reduce the set of data to which the Shapley calculations are applied. Accordingly, as constructed, the claimed invention does not appear to benefit from the reduced computation burden identified by Applicant.
NOTE For Applicant’s Benefit: Clarification that the utility function output reduces the input set to the Shapley value as well as clarification of technical processes performed in the conversion of unstructured data to structured data could serve to assist in overcoming the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As presented, the function(s) reasonably attributable to the claimed processes as added by amendment are limited to (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., data); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., data and models); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., calculating values, identifying data based on the values, and using a mathematical model to generate a prediction) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully maintains that claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of calculating a value associated with data for the purpose of identifying high-quality data and using the identified data to train and apply a predictive mathematical service model using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment, e.g., generic devices capable of storing and retrieving information from computer memory, transmitting and receiving information over a computer network, and performing known calculations otherwise performable by human mental processing and/or using pen and paper. The claimed calculating a value associated with data for the purpose of identifying high-quality data and using the identified data to train and apply a predictive mathematical service model benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
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.
[4] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-19 (now claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15-19 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The statement of rejection below is reiterated as originally presented in the previous Office Action mailed 18 June 2025. The present amendments and remarks are addressed above under “Response to Remarks/Amendment”.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024. Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15-19 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to a method, a device/system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 10, and 19 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of mathematically calculating a value associated with data for the purpose of identifying high-quality data and using the identified data to train and apply a predictive mathematical service model, which is reasonably considered to be method of limited to claimed ineligible Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) and associated steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions). In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed illustrates a series of steps and functions in which a mathematical process is utilized to identify high-quality data to be used for training a model (i.e., a mathematical model) that enables the prediction of demand for a service, which is an ineligible inventive process limited to claimed mathematical calculations and human mental observations and evaluations.
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to the implementation of Mathematical Concepts as ineligible abstract ideas (See at least Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978)). Further, the courts consider steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, mental processes or concepts performed in the human mind including observation and evaluation are considered to be ineligible abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to Mathematical Concepts, representative claim 1 recites:
“…calculating a value of each piece of original data based on a utility function associated with a service revenue…”
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 1 recites:
“…acquiring pieces of high-value data from the original data based on the value of each piece of original data; performing a service prediction on the pieces of high-value data…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited computer and models (claim 1) and/or the processor, memory, and executable instructions (claims 10 and 19), given a formula or equation and requisite inputs one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably relied upon to calculate a value as a function of the provided mathematical equation using pen and paper. By extension, given the calculated output values, one of ordinary skill would be capable of acquiring or selecting high-quality data based on the calculated values and making a service prediction by inputting the identified data into an applicable mathematical service model employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional elements of claim 1 are limited to the general indication that that the claimed method is “computer-implemented” as designated in the preamble. Claims 10 and 19 further indicate that the system functions are performed using/by a processor and memory storing executable instructions. With respect to these potential additional elements, the claimed “computer” is identified as engaged in the performance of the recited methods steps in a general or unspecified manner (claim 1). The claimed “processor” and “instructions” of claims 10 and 19 are indicated as being generally engaged an unspecified manner in executing the functions mirroring the steps of method claim 1.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., values are calculated, data is acquired/identified based on the values, predictions are calculated using a mathematical model etc.) as associated with a respective “computer” or “processor”. Beyond the general statement that a computer, processor, and executable instructions are generally used in the claimed method/system, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “processor” and “instructions” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a computer” or “by a processor”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The technology as engaged is solely identified as storing and retrieving information, performing tasks that are otherwise performable in the human mind (e.g., calculating values, identifying data based on the values, and using a mathematical model to generate a prediction), and sending and receiving information over a network (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of calculating a value associated with data for the purpose of identifying high-quality data and using the identified data to train and apply a predictive mathematical service model using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed calculating a value associated with data for the purpose of identifying high-quality data and using the identified data to train and apply a predictive mathematical service model benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes pages 22-24. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
With respect to the executable routines, the claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures are programmed/configured to: (1) calculate values (2) acquire/identify based on the values; and (3) generate service predictions using a mathematical model. While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., data); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., data and models); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., calculating values, identifying data based on the values, and using a mathematical model to generate a prediction). The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of calculating a value associated with data for the purpose of identifying high-quality data and using the identified data to train and apply a predictive mathematical service model. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., calculating a value associated with data for the purpose of identifying high-quality data and using the identified data to train and apply a predictive mathematical service model, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of calculating a value associated with data for the purpose of identifying high-quality data and using the identified data to train and apply a predictive mathematical service model benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: 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; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information 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); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 10 and 19, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4, 6-9, 13, and 15-18, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
[5] Previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 10-11, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0237520 hereinafter ‘Wang’) has/have been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
[6] Claim(s) 3-6, 9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0237520 hereinafter ‘Wang’) in view of Bhatnager et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0351421 hereinafter ‘Bhatnager’) has/have been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
[7] Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
[8] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parvaneh et al., SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CLINICAL EVENT EVALUATION, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0029688, paragraphs [0075]-[0076]: Relevant Teachings: Parvaneh discloses a system/method that provides a feature selection process which utilizes SHAP values to assess relative importance of features.
Zahn et al., SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SAMPLE EVALUATION, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0376797, paragraphs [0082]-[0083]: Relevant Teachings: Zahn discloses a system/method that provides evaluations of functional property values for feature subsets and further applies SHAP values to analyze relative lift of feature sets.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights