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:
• input data comprising a collection of samples and associated feature values comprising a collection of features (i.e., mathematical data)
• normalizing … , at least a portion of the associated feature values to a predetermined numerical range (i.e., mathematical steps)
• obtaining … , a feature graph (i.e., mental steps)
• a conditional independence graph (i.e., mental steps)
• respective nodes represent respective features of the collection of features (i.e., mental steps)
• respective edges represent direct dependencies between respective pairs of features that satisfy one or more sparsity constraints (i.e., mental steps)
• sparsity constraints (i.e., mental steps)
• obtaining … , a partial correlation matrix associated with the feature graph (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• partial correlation matrix comprising negative partial correlation values for negatively correlated directly dependent feature pairs and positive partial correlation values for positively correlated directly dependent feature pairs (i.e., mathematical data)
• generating … , one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices from the partial correlation matrix by transforming the positive partial correlation values and the negative partial correlation values into row-normalized transition probability distributions associated with the direct dependencies of the feature graph (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating … , an attribute matrix that represents, for respective features of the collection of features (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• known attribute values for a first subset of the features (i.e., mathematical data)
• initial probability distributions for unknown attribute values of a second subset of the features (i.e., mathematical equations)
• when present, partially known attribute values represented as probability distributions over possible attribute values (i.e., mathematical equations)
• computing … , using an attribute propagation algorithm, predicted attribute values for the second subset of the features by applying the one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices to the attribute matrix (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating output attribute data comprising the known attribute values and the predicted attribute values (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating output attribute data comprising the known attribute values and the predicted attribute values (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
Claim 1
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method performed by one or more processors of a computing system executing a knowledge propagation system, the computer-implemented 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”:
• input data comprising a collection of samples and associated feature values comprising a collection of features (i.e., mathematical data)
• normalizing … , at least a portion of the associated feature values to a predetermined numerical range (i.e., mathematical steps)
• obtaining … , a feature graph (i.e., mental steps)
• a conditional independence graph (i.e., mental steps)
• respective nodes represent respective features of the collection of features (i.e., mental steps)
• respective edges represent direct dependencies between respective pairs of features that satisfy one or more sparsity constraints (i.e., mental steps)
• sparsity constraints (i.e., mental steps)
• obtaining … , a partial correlation matrix associated with the feature graph (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• partial correlation matrix comprising negative partial correlation values for negatively correlated directly dependent feature pairs and positive partial correlation values for positively correlated directly dependent feature pairs (i.e., mathematical data)
• generating … , one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices from the partial correlation matrix by transforming the positive partial correlation values and the negative partial correlation values into row-normalized transition probability distributions associated with the direct dependencies of the feature graph (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating … , an attribute matrix that represents, for respective features of the collection of features (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• known attribute values for a first subset of the features (i.e., mathematical data)
• initial probability distributions for unknown attribute values of a second subset of the features (i.e., mathematical equations)
• when present, partially known attribute values represented as probability distributions over possible attribute values (i.e., mathematical equations)
• computing … , using an attribute propagation algorithm, predicted attribute values for the second subset of the features by applying the one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices to the attribute matrix (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating output attribute data comprising the known attribute values and the predicted attribute values (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating output attribute data comprising the known attribute values and the predicted attribute values (i.e., mental steps or mathematical 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 “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system”
(2) A “knowledge propagation system”
(3) A “receiving, via a communication interface of an application”
(4) A “graph recovery manager”
(5) A “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system”
(6) An “attribute propagation manager”
(7) A “data-providing application”
(1) A “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
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.
This “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system” 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)).
(2) A “knowledge propagation system” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “knowledge propagation system” 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)).
(3) A “receiving, via a communication interface of an application” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g) recites:
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.
This “receiving, via a communication interface of an application” 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)).
(4) A “graph recovery manager” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “graph recovery manager” 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)).
(5) A “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system” 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)).
(6) A “attribute propagation manager” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “attribute propagation manager” 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)).
(7) A “data-providing application” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “data-providing application” 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 “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system”
(2) A “knowledge propagation system”
(3) A “receiving, via a communication interface of an application”
(4) A “graph recovery manager”
(5) A “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system”
(6) An “attribute propagation manager”
(7) A “data-providing application”
(1) A “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. 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.
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)).
(2) A “knowledge propagation system” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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)).
(3) A “receiving, via a communication interface of an application” 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.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
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)).
(4) A “graph recovery manager” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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)).
(5) A “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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)).
(6) An “attribute propagation manager” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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)).
(7) A “data-providing application” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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 1 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
2. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented 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 an association between sampled data and feature value 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 2 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
3. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices includes generating distributions of weights associated with respective features and based at least in part on correlations between respective features indicated in the feature graph.
Applicant’s Claim 3 merely teaches mathematical probability matrices and mathematical weight distributions. 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. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first subset of the features includes features having one or more partially known attributes that characterize the first subset of the features corresponding to a known probability distribution over all possible attribute values for a corresponding attribute.
Applicant’s Claim 4 merely teaches attributes that are “known” (i.e., mental steps or 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 4 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
5. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising initializing the attribute matrix that is comprised of each feature with respect to one or more known attributes, one or more partially known attributes, and one or more unknown attributes for each feature, wherein the one or more known attributes are represented for each feature by corresponding known attribute values, the one or more partially known attributes are represented for each feature by known probability distributions for 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 a mathematical matrix. 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. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising:
performing an iterative attribute propagation algorithm including applying the one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices 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 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 performance of an iterative attribute propagation algorithm, determination of a “difference” (i.e., mathematical subtraction), and “generating” an “output set” of values. 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. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented 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 the “determination” that a “value” is above a “threshold” and the “generation” of attribute matrices. 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. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented 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 within a predetermined number of iterations.
Applicant’s Claim 8 merely teaches mathematically applying a regularization term to attribute values and causing an algorithm to converge (i.e., either mental steps or 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. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the feature graph comprises
an undirected graph indicating direct dependencies determined from a graph recovery method.
Applicant’s Claim 9 merely teaches A 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. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented 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 model comprises:
sorting the one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices into features based on known and unknown attributes;
splitting the one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices 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 sorting transition probability matrices, splitting those matrices into submatrices, and performing a functional combination of 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 10 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites:
11. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices comprises exponentiating each cell of the partial correlation matrix based on a scaling intensity parameter and row-normalizing such that each row of the partial correlation matrix represents a valid probability distribution.
Applicant’s Claim 11 merely teaches mathematically exponentiating each cell of the partial correlation matrix and row-normalizing. 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. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices 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 generating a positive transition 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 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”:
• input data comprising a collection of samples and associated feature values comprising a collection of features (i.e., mathematical data)
• normalizing … , at least a portion of the associated feature values to a predetermined numerical range (i.e., mathematical steps)
• obtaining … , a feature graph (i.e., mental steps)
• a conditional independence graph (i.e., mental steps)
• respective nodes represent respective features of the collection of features (i.e., mental steps)
• respective edges represent direct dependencies between respective pairs of features that satisfy one or more sparsity constraints (i.e., mental steps)
• sparsity constraints (i.e., mental steps)
• obtaining … , a partial correlation matrix associated with the feature graph (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• partial correlation matrix comprising negative partial correlation values for negatively correlated directly dependent feature pairs and positive partial correlation values for positively correlated directly dependent feature pairs (i.e., mathematical data)
• generating … , one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices from the partial correlation matrix by transforming the positive partial correlation values and the negative partial correlation values into row-normalized transition probability distributions associated with the direct dependencies of the feature graph (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating … , an attribute matrix that represents, for respective features of the collection of features (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• known attribute values for a first subset of the features (i.e., mathematical data)
• initial probability distributions for unknown attribute values of a second subset of the features (i.e., mathematical equations)
• when present, partially known attribute values represented as probability distributions over possible attribute values (i.e., mathematical equations)
• computing … , using an attribute propagation algorithm, predicted attribute values for the second subset of the features by applying the one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices to the attribute matrix (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating output attribute data comprising the known attribute values and the predicted attribute values (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating output attribute data comprising the known attribute values and the predicted attribute values (i.e., mental steps or mathematical 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 “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system”
(2) A “knowledge propagation system”
(3) A “receiving, via a communication interface of an application”
(4) A “graph recovery manager”
(5) A “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system”
(6) An “attribute propagation manager”
(7) A “data-providing application”
(1) A “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
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.
This “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system” 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)).
(2) A “knowledge propagation system” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “knowledge propagation system” 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)).
(3) A “receiving, via a communication interface of an application” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g) recites:
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.
This “receiving, via a communication interface of an application” 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)).
(4) A “graph recovery manager” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “graph recovery manager” 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)).
(5) A “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system” 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)).
(6) A “attribute propagation manager” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “attribute propagation manager” 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)).
(7) A “data-providing application” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “data-providing application” 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 “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system”
(2) A “knowledge propagation system”
(3) A “receiving, via a communication interface of an application”
(4) A “graph recovery manager”
(5) A “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system”
(6) An “attribute propagation manager”
(7) A “data-providing application”
(1) A “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. 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.
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)).
(2) A “knowledge propagation system” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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)).
(3) A “receiving, via a communication interface of an application” 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.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
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)).
(4) A “graph recovery manager” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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)).
(5) A “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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)).
(6) An “attribute propagation manager” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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)).
(7) A “data-providing application” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 13, wherein the first subset of the features includes features having one or more partially known attributes corresponding to a known probability distribution over all possible attribute values for a corresponding attribute.
Applicant’s Claim 14 merely teaches mathematical features having one or more partially known attributes. 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. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 14, wherein generating the one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices 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 a transition matrix. 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. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 14, further comprising initializing the attribute matrix that is comprised of each feature with respect to one or more known attributes, one or more partially known attributes, and one or more unknown attributes for each feature, wherein the one or more known attributes are represented for each feature by corresponding known attribute values, the one or more partially known attributes are represented for each feature by known probability distributions for 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. 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. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 16, further comprising:
performing an iterative attribute propagation algorithm including applying one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices 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 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 Performing an iterative Atria propagation algorithm, applying transition probability matrices, determining that a mathematical difference is less than a threshold, and generating an output set of data (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. (Original) 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 the “determination” that a “value” is above a “threshold” and the “generation” of attribute matrices. 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. (Original) 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 mathematically applying a regularization term to attribute values and causing an algorithm to converge (i.e., either mental steps or 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. (Currently Amended) 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”:
• input data comprising a collection of samples and associated feature values comprising a collection of features (i.e., mathematical data)
• normalizing … , at least a portion of the associated feature values to a predetermined numerical range (i.e., mathematical steps)
• obtaining … , a feature graph (i.e., mental steps)
• a conditional independence graph (i.e., mental steps)
• respective nodes represent respective features of the collection of features (i.e., mental steps)
• respective edges represent direct dependencies between respective pairs of features that satisfy one or more sparsity constraints (i.e., mental steps)
• sparsity constraints (i.e., mental steps)
• obtaining … , a partial correlation matrix associated with the feature graph (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• partial correlation matrix comprising negative partial correlation values for negatively correlated directly dependent feature pairs and positive partial correlation values for positively correlated directly dependent feature pairs (i.e., mathematical data)
• generating … , one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices from the partial correlation matrix by transforming the positive partial correlation values and the negative partial correlation values into row-normalized transition probability distributions associated with the direct dependencies of the feature graph (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating … , an attribute matrix that represents, for respective features of the collection of features (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• known attribute values for a first subset of the features (i.e., mathematical data)
• initial probability distributions for unknown attribute values of a second subset of the features (i.e., mathematical equations)
• when present, partially known attribute values represented as probability distributions over possible attribute values (i.e., mathematical equations)
• computing … , using an attribute propagation algorithm, predicted attribute values for the second subset of the features by applying the one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices to the attribute matrix (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating output attribute data comprising the known attribute values and the predicted attribute values (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating output attribute data comprising the known attribute values and the predicted attribute values (i.e., mental steps or mathematical 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 “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system”
(2) A “knowledge propagation system”
(3) A “receiving, via a communication interface of an application”
(4) A “graph recovery manager”
(5) A “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system”
(6) An “attribute propagation manager”
(7) A “data-providing application”
(1) A “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
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.
This “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system” 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)).
(2) A “knowledge propagation system” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “knowledge propagation system” 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)).
(3) A “receiving, via a communication interface of an application” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g) recites:
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.
This “receiving, via a communication interface of an application” 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)).
(4) A “graph recovery manager” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “graph recovery manager” 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)).
(5) A “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system” 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)).
(6) A “attribute propagation manager” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “attribute propagation manager” 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)).
(7) A “data-providing application” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
This “data-providing application” 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 “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system”
(2) A “knowledge propagation system”
(3) A “receiving, via a communication interface of an application”
(4) A “graph recovery manager”
(5) A “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system”
(6) An “attribute propagation manager”
(7) A “data-providing application”
(1) A “computer”/ “processors”/ “computing system” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. 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.
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)).
(2) A “knowledge propagation system” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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)).
(3) A “receiving, via a communication interface of an application” 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.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
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)).
(4) A “graph recovery manager” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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)).
(5) A “transition matrix manager of the knowledge propagation system” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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)).
(6) An “attribute propagation manager” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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)).
(7) A “data-providing application” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f) recites in part:
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.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 JUN 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Argument 1
A. The Claims Are Not Directed to a Judicial Exception.
***
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to any of the above groupings of abstract ideas. For example, the claims have been amended to recite executing a knowledge propagation system including:
***
As will be discussed in further detail below, this specific process of utilizing a feature graph, a partial correlation matrix, one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices, and an attribute matrix to generate output attribute data including known attribute values and predicted attribute values for use by a data-providing application. As will be discussed in further detail below, these limitations, inter alia, provide non-conventional improvements that are unique to examining and analyzing relationships of features for large datasets utilizing a conditional independence graph. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that even if certain claim limitations involve mathematical relationships or calculations, the claims as a whole are not directed to the mathematical concepts themselves, but rather to a specific technological implementation that uses those calculations to improve graph-based attribute prediction.
This step in the analysis is a search for any judicial exceptions in the claim. Examiner has identified numerous judicial exceptions in the claim. For example:
A) “normalizing … , at least a portion of the associated feature values to a predetermined numerical range” is a set of purely mathematical steps.
B) “utilizing a feature graph” is a set of mental steps because the feature graph is in graph form specifically so that it may be grasped in the human mind.
C) “a partial correlation matrix, one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices, and an attribute matrix” are purely mathematical constructs.
More are listed in the rejection above.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 2
B. The Independent Claims Integrate Any Recited Exception into a Practical Application.
***
While the technology in the pending application differs from the specific innovations discussed in Enfish, the claimed invention is no less directed to an improvement in a computer- based technology. Here, the pending claims are directed to a particular technological implementation for graph-based attribute propagation rather than to an abstract mathematical concept in the abstract. In particular, the pending claims are directed to a specific graph-based attribute prediction technique that utilizes a conditional independence graph, graph-derived transition probability matrices, and an attribute matrix to improve upon a process of generating and providing output attribute data including predicted attribute values to a data-providing application. As discussed in the Application, this process of determining predicted attribute values by propagating knowledge between nodes of a feature graph even where those nodes are not directly dependent on a node of interest. See Application [0016]. This enables the claimed "knowledge propagation system" to generate predicted attribute values using information propagated through indirect feature relationships that would not otherwise be considered by approaches limited to direct dependencies. See id.
As described in the Application, this claimed process uses a feature graph created based on a collection of samples to predict attributes of associated features based on correlations that exist between the features of the samples. See, e.g., id. [0013]. The claims do not merely recite performing a mathematical calculation. Rather, the claims recite a particular sequence in which (i) a conditional independence graph is obtained, (ii) a partial correlation matrix is derived from the graph, (iii) graph-derived transition probability matrices are generated from the partial correlation matrix, and (iv) attribute values are propagated using the generated transition probability matrices to produce output attribute data for downstream applications.
For example, by applying one or more graph-derived transition probability matrices to the attribute matrix, the recited knowledge propagation system can "accurately determine predictions of unknown attributes based on feature relationships as well as known attributes for other features in a way the provides valuable insight based on all nodes of a graph while doing so in a computationally efficient manner." See, e.g., id. [0014]. Moreover, in contrast to "conventional models for analyzing graphs [that] typically limit inferences based on those features that are directly dependent within a recovered graph," the "knowledge propagation system facilitates prediction of attribute values based on correlations between features that may or may not necessarily be related to attributes of interest." See, e.g., id. [0016]. Thus, even if the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claimed invention provides a specific, identifiable improvement in computer- implemented graph analysis and attribute prediction techniques which "integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] . . . imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.;" See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(a). Applicant respectfully requests the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
The claim is drawn to “graph analysis and attribute prediction techniques”. It is not drawn to machine learning. The abstract ideas are mathematical and mental steps.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 3
C. The Independent Claims Include Significantly More than an Abstract Idea
***
For similar reasons as the claims in McRO were held patent-eligible, independent claim 1 recites patent-eligible subject matter because the combination of claim elements provides a non- conventional and non-generic implementation for "generating output attribute data comprising the known attribute values and the predicted attribute values" and "providing the output attribute data to at least a data-providing application for use in presenting or further presenting or utilizing the predicted attribute values." Indeed, similar to McRO in which the claims were held to be patent eligible as solving because the claimed method recited specific steps that accomplish an improvement in computer-implemented graph analysis techniques, the limitations of currently amended independent claim 1, when performed in combination, addresses a problem arising in computer-implemented graph analysis associated with propagating knowledge of attributes between nodes of a feature graph. Similar to McRO, the claimed methods and systems recite a specific sequence of graph-based operations that are practically implemented using computer processing and that improve graph-based attribute prediction. Rather than merely reciting mathematical relationships, the claims recite a particular sequence of graph recovery, matrix generation, and attribute propagation operations that together provide a specific technological approach for generating predicted attribute values.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea and, in addition, recites significantly more than the alleged abstract idea(s) identified in the Office Action. In view of this, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of independent claim 1 be withdrawn.
The generation of “predicted attribute values” does not improve a technology. There are no additional elements in the claim that are significantly more than the abstract ideas that are presented (see, rejection above.)
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 4
Dependent claims 1-12 depend from claim 1 and recite allowable subject matter for similar reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1.
Applicant’s argument for Claim 1 is unpersuasive. Therefore, there is no eligible matter that may be incorporated by reference to the dependent claims.
The rejections stand.
Argument 5
Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 13 and 20 recite patent-eligible subject matter and should be allowable for similar reasons discussed above in connection with independent claim 1.
Similar arguments for similar claims are similarly unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 6
Moreover, as each of the dependent claims 14-19 depend from independent claim 13, each of the dependent claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter for at least similar reasons as discussed above in connection with independent claim 13.
Applicant’s argument for Claim 13 is unpersuasive. Therefore, there is no eligible matter that may be incorporated by reference to the dependent claims.
The rejections stand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any 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
21 JUL 2026
Prosecution Insights