DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The invention, as taught in Claims 1-20, is directed to “mental steps” and “mathematical steps” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
• obtaining a partial correlation matrix associated with the feature graph, the partial correlation matrix including partial correlation values (i.e. mathematical steps)
• generating a transition probability matrix based on the partial correlation matrix (i.e. mathematical steps)
• using an attribute propagation algorithm to compute predicted attribute values for the second subset of features for which the attribute values are unknown based on the known attribute values and distributions of values from the transition probability matrix (i.e. mathematical steps)
• obtaining a feature graph for a collection of samples and associated feature values (i.e., mental steps)
• values indicating dependencies between respective features of the collection of samples (i.e., mental steps)
• identifying, from a collection of features, a first subset of features having one or more known attributes and corresponding known attribute values
• identifying, from the collection of features, a second subset of features having one or more unknown attributes and corresponding unknown attribute values
• attributes
• attribute values
Claim 1
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “1. A method, comprising…” Therefore, it is a “method” (or “process”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES.”
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 1 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 1 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• obtaining a partial correlation matrix associated with the feature graph, the partial correlation matrix including partial correlation values (i.e. mathematical steps)
• generating a transition probability matrix based on the partial correlation matrix (i.e. mathematical steps)
• using an attribute propagation algorithm to compute predicted attribute values for the second subset of features for which the attribute values are unknown based on the known attribute values and distributions of values from the transition probability matrix (i.e. mathematical steps)
• obtaining a feature graph for a collection of samples and associated feature values (i.e., mental steps)
• values indicating dependencies between respective features of the collection of samples (i.e., mental steps)
• identifying, from a collection of features, a first subset of features having one or more known attributes and corresponding known attribute values
• identifying, from the collection of features, a second subset of features having one or more unknown attributes and corresponding unknown attribute values
• attributes
• attribute values
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain no “additional elements”. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain no “additional elements”. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein each sample of the collection of samples is associated with one or more features values.
Applicant’s Claim 2 merely teaches the association of one set of data with another set of data. (i.e., mathematical or mental steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 2 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the transition probability matrix includes generating distributions of weights associated with respective features and based at least in part on the correlations between respective features indicated in the feature graph.
Applicant’s Claim 3 merely teaches the mathematical calculation of a “transition probability matrix” (i.e., mathematical steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 3 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first subset of features includes features having one or more partially known attributes corresponding to a known probability distribution over all possible attribute values for the corresponding attribute.
Applicant’s Claim 4 merely teaches one set of data (i.e., “features”) having mathematical “attributes” (i.e., a description of mathematical data). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 4 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising initializing an attribute matrix that is comprised of each feature with respect to the one or more known attributes, the one or more partially known attributes, and the one or more unknown attributes for each feature, wherein the one or more known attributes are represented for each feature by the corresponding known attribute values, the one or more partially known attributes are represented for each feature by the known probability distributions for the corresponding partially known features, the one or more unknown attributes are represented for each feature by a uniform distribution of initial attribute values.
Applicant’s Claim 5 merely teaches “initializing an attribute matrix” (i.e., mathematical steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 5 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising:
performing an iterative attribute propagation algorithm including applying the transition matrix to a current instance of the attribute matrix to generate a next instance of the attribute matrix with updated attribute values, and
determining that a difference between the attribute values of two consecutive iterated instances of the attribute matrix is less than or equal to a convergence threshold indicating that the attribute values have converged to a set of converged attribute values; and
generating an output set of the predicted attribute values based on the set of converged attribute values.
Applicant’s Claim 6 merely teaches “an iterative attribute propagation algorithm”, “determining that a difference” between numbers “is less than or equal to a convergence threshold”, and “generating an output set of the predicted attribute values” (i.e., mathematical steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 6 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
7. The method of claim 6, wherein performing the iterative attribute propagation algorithm further comprises:
determining that a difference between the attribute values of two consecutive iterated instances of the attribute matrix is greater than the convergence threshold, indicating that the attribute values have not converged; and
iteratively generating an additional next instance of the attribute matrix until the difference between the attribute values of two consecutive iterated instances of the attribute matrix is less than or equal to the convergence threshold indicating that the attribute values have converged to the set of converged attribute values.
Applicant’s Claim 7 merely teaches a “determination” of whether a “difference between numbers is greater than a threshold” and iteratively generating attribute matrices (i.e., mathematical steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 7 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites:
8. The method of claim 7, wherein generating the next instance of the attribute matrix with updated attribute values includes applying a regularization term to the updated attribute values, the regularization term causing the iterative attribute propagation algorithm to converge faster or slower.
Applicant’s Claim 8 merely teaches calculation of an “attribute matrix” (i.e., mathematical steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 8 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites:
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the feature graph is one of:
a conditional independence graph; or
an undirected graph indicating direct dependencies determined from a graph recovery method.
Applicant’s Claim 9 merely teaches “a conditional independence graph” and “an undirected graph” (i.e., mental steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 9 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites:
10. The method of claim 1, wherein using the attribute propagation algorithm to compute the predicted attribute values includes using an analytical model that analytically determines a distribution of attributes over the features with unknown attributes, wherein using the analytical algorithm comprises:
sorting the transition matrix into features based on known and unknown attributes;
splitting the transition matrix into a plurality of submatrices, the plurality of submatrices including:
a first submatrix including features of unknown attributes in both columns and rows;
a second submatrix including features of known attributes in columns and features of unknown attributes in rows;
a third submatrix including features of unknown attributes in columns and features of known attributes in rows; and
a fourth submatrix including features of known attributes in both rows and columns; and
performing a functional combination of the plurality of submatrices with a known attribute matrix to generate the predicted attribute values, wherein the known attribute matrix is comprised of features having known attribute values.
Applicant’s Claim 10 merely teaches mathematical manipulation of matrices and submatrices (i.e., mathematical steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 10 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites:
11. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the transition probability matrix comprises exponentiating each cell of the partial correlation matrix based on a scaling intensity parameter and row-normalizing such that each row of the correlation matrix represents a valid probability distribution.
Applicant’s Claim 11 merely teaches exponentiating each cell of the partial correlation matrix (i.e., mathematical steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 11 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites:
12. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the transition probability matrix comprises generating a positive transition matrix based on only positive correlations and generating a negative transition matrix based on only negative correlations.
Applicant’s Claim 12 merely teaches mathematically “generating” a “transition probability”. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 12 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 13
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “13. A system, comprising…” Therefore, it is a “system” (or “apparatus”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES.”
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 13 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 13 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• obtain a partial correlation matrix associated with the feature graph, the partial correlation matrix including partial correlation values (i.e., mathematical steps)
• generate a transition probability matrix based on the partial correlation matrix (i.e., mathematical steps)
• use an attribute propagation algorithm to compute predicted attribute values for the second subset of features, for which the attribute values are unknown, based on the known attribute values and distributions of values from the transition probability matrix (i.e., mathematical steps)
• obtaining a feature graph for a collection of samples and associated feature values (i.e., mental steps)
• values indicating dependencies between respective features of the collection of samples
• identifying, from a collection of features, a first subset of features having one or more known attributes and corresponding known attribute values
• identifying, from the collection of features, a second subset of features having one or more unknown attributes and corresponding unknown attribute values
• attributes
• attribute values
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A processor
(2) A memory in electronic communication with the at least one processor
A “processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
This “processor” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “memory in electronic communication with the at least one processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. 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;
This “memory in electronic communication with the at least one processor” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A processor
(2) A memory in electronic communication with the at least one processor
A “processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (I)(A)(i-ii) recites:
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0079] recites:
[0079] The computer system 600 includes a processor 601. The processor 601 may be a general-purpose single- or multi-chip microprocessor (e.g., an Advanced RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) Machine (ARM)), a special-purpose microprocessor (e.g., a digital signal processor (DSP)), a microcontroller, a programmable gate array, etc. The processor 601 may be referred to as a central processing unit (CPU). Although just a single processor 601 is shown in the computer system 600 of FIG. 6, in an alternative configuration, a combination of processors (e.g., an ARM and DSP) could be used. In one or more embodiments, the computer system 600 further includes one or more graphics processing units (GPUs), which can provide processing services related to both entity classification and graph generation.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “memory in electronic communication with the at least one processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. 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;
Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0080] recites:
[0080] The computer system 600 also includes memory 603 in electronic communication with the processor 601. The memory 603 may be any electronic component capable of storing electronic information. For example, the memory 603 may be embodied as random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), magnetic disk storage media, optical storage media, flash memory devices in RAM, on-board memory included with the processor, erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM) memory, registers, and so forth, including combinations thereof.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 13 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites:
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the first subset of features includes features having one or more partially known attributes corresponding to a known probability distribution over all possible attribute values for the corresponding attribute.
Applicant’s Claim 14 merely teaches “features having one or more partially known attributes corresponding to a known probability distribution” (i.e., mathematical steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 14 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites:
15. The system of claim 14, wherein generating the transition probability matrix includes generating a transition matrix including distributions of weights associated with respective sample features and based at least in part on the correlations between respective features indicated in the feature graph.
Applicant’s Claim 15 merely teaches generating the transition probability matrix (i.e., mathematical steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 15 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites:
16. The system of claim 14, further comprising initializing an attribute matrix that is comprised of each feature with respect to the one or more known attributes, the one or more partially known attributes, and the one or more unknown attributes for each feature, wherein the one or more known attributes are represented for each feature by the corresponding known attribute values, the one or more partially known attributes are represented for each feature by the known probability distributions for the corresponding partially known features, the one or more unknown attributes are represented for each feature by a uniform distribution of initial attribute values.
Applicant’s Claim 16 merely teaches “initializing an attribute matrix” (i.e., mathematical steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 16 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites:
17. The system of claim 16, further comprising:
performing an iterative attribute propagation algorithm including applying the transition matrix to a current instance of the attribute matrix to generate a next instance of the attribute matrix with updated attribute values,:
determining that a difference between the attribute values of two consecutive iterated instances of the attribute matrix is less than or equal to a convergence threshold, indicating that the attribute values have converged to a set of converged attribute values; and
generating an output set of the predicted attribute values based on the set of converged attribute values.
Applicant’s Claim 17 merely teaches “an iterative attribute propagation algorithm”, “determining that a difference” between numbers “is less than or equal to a convergence threshold”, and “generating an output set of the predicted attribute values” (i.e., mathematical steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 17 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites:
18. The system of claim 17, wherein performing the iterative attribute propagation algorithm further comprises:
determining that the difference between the attribute values of two consecutive iterated instances of the attribute matrix is greater than the convergence threshold, indicating that the attribute values have not converged; and
iteratively generating an additional next instance of the attribute matrix until the difference between the attribute values of two consecutive iterated instances of the attribute matrix is less than or equal to the convergence threshold, indicating that the attribute values have converged to the set of converged attribute values.
Applicant’s Claim 18 merely teaches a “determination” of whether a “difference between numbers is greater than a threshold” and iteratively generating attribute matrices (i.e., mathematical steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 18 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites:
19. The system of claim 18, wherein generating the next instance of the attribute matrix with updated attribute values includes applying a regularization term to the updated attribute values, the regularization term causing the iterative attribute propagation algorithm to converge faster or slower.
Applicant’s Claim 19 merely teaches calculation of an “attribute matrix” (i.e., mathematical steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 19 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 20
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “20. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing device to…” Therefore, it is a “non-transitory computer readable medium” (or “product of manufacture”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES.”
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 20 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 20 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• obtain a partial correlation matrix associated with the feature graph, the partial correlation matrix including partial correlation values (i.e., mathematical steps)
• generate a transition probability matrix based on the partial correlation matrix (i.e., mathematical steps)
• use an attribute propagation algorithm to compute predicted attribute values for the second subset of features, for which the attribute values are unknown, based on the known attribute values and distributions of values from the transition probability matrix (i.e., mathematical steps)
• obtain a feature graph for a collection of samples and associated feature values (i.e., mental steps)
• values indicating dependencies between respective features of the collection of samples (i.e., mental steps)
• identify, from a collection of features, a first subset of features having one or more known attributes and corresponding known attribute values (i.e., mental steps)
• identify, from the collection of features, a second subset of features having one or more unknown attributes and corresponding unknown attribute values (i.e., mental steps)
• attributes (i.e., mental steps)
• attribute values (i.e., mental steps)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processor” and a “computing device”
(2) A “non-transitory computer readable medium”
A “processor” and a “computing device” are broad terms which are described at a high level and include general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
This “processor” and “computing device” limitations do not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “non-transitory computer readable medium” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. 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;
This “non-transitory computer readable medium” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processor” and a “computing device”
(2) A “non-transitory computer readable medium”
A “processor” and a “computing device” are broad terms which are described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These “processor” and a “computing device” limitations do not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “non-transitory computer readable medium” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. 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;
The claimed computer readable medium is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0080] recites:
[0080] The computer system 600 also includes memory 603 in electronic communication with the processor 601. The memory 603 may be any electronic component capable of storing electronic information. For example, the memory 603 may be embodied as random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), magnetic disk storage media, optical storage media, flash memory devices in RAM, on-board memory included with the processor, erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM) memory, registers, and so forth, including combinations thereof.
This “non-transitory computer readable medium” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 20 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims Not Rejected Under Art
Claims 1-20 are not rejected since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP § 2111.01, none of the references of record, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the combination of limitations specified in independent Claim 1. Specifically, the closest prior art of Albert, et al., A Bayesian Approach to the Estimation of Parameters and Their Interdependencies in Environmental Modeling, Entropy 2022, 24(2), 231, 03 FEB 2022 fails to expressly teach:
Claim 1's "...attribute propagation algorithm..."
Claim 1's "...transition probability matrix based on the partial correlation matrix..."
Claim 1's "...partial correlation matrix associated with the feature graph..."
Further, none of the references of record, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the combination of limitations specified in independent Claim 13. Specifically, the closest prior art of Albert, et al. fails to expressly teach:
Claim 13's "...attribute propagation algorithm..."
Claim 13's "...transition probability matrix based on the partial correlation matrix..."
Claim 13's "...partial correlation matrix associated with the feature graph..."
Further, none of the references of record, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the combination of limitations specified in independent Claim 20. Specifically, the closest prior art of Albert, et al. fails to expressly teach:
Claim 20's "...attribute propagation algorithm..."
Claim 20's "...transition probability matrix based on the partial correlation matrix..."
Claim 20's "...partial correlation matrix associated with the feature graph..."
Only to the extent that these limitations (specifically as defined above) are not found in the prior art of record is the present case not rejected over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
07 MAR 2026