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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 01/30/2026.
Claims 1, 10, 17, and 19 are currently amended.
Claims 2 - 9, 11- 16, 18 and 20 are originals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, Claims 1-9 and 20 is to a method (i.e., a process), Claim 11-18 to a device (i.e., a machine), and Claim 19 to a computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
A control test method, applied to an online platform and implemented by a processor of a computer device in the online platform, comprising:
obtaining an experimental scheme, and performing quantization processing on experimental variables in the experimental scheme to obtain a quantization index corresponding to each of the experimental variables, wherein the experimental variables comprise a causal variable and an outcome variable, the causal variable being used to characterize a configurable element on the online platform that influences user behavior, and the outcome variable comprising a user interaction behavior indicator obtained by analyzing user behavior logs;
determining an evaluation index corresponding to the quantization index of the outcome variable, and determining, based on the evaluation index, a sample size of experimental samples in the experimental scheme, the evaluation index being used for evaluating a difference value between two outcome variables obtained respectively for an experimental group and a control group in the experimental scheme under different causal variables; and
obtaining, based on the determined sample size of experimental samples, experimental samples in the experimental scheme from a user database of the online platform such that the obtained experimental samples are equal in number to the determined sample size of experimental samples, and dividing the obtained experimental samples into the experimental group and the control group based on a control grouping condition of the experimental scheme, for completing the experimental scheme by using the experimental group and the control group, wherein the quantization index of the causal variable corresponding to the experimental group is different from the quantization index of the causal variable corresponding to the control group; and
determining a service configuration of the online platform based on an experimental result.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. The steps describe, at a high level, obtaining information and making determinations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above relate to the rules or instructions pertaining to designing a control test, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by [0033] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: implemented by a processor of a computer device, on-line platform, database.
Claim 10 recites the following additional elements: computer device; a memory; a processor, the machine-readable instruction being executable by the processor, on-line platform, database.
Claim 19 recites the following additional elements: non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, database, computer program, on-line platform, a computer device.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [00144] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computing system, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, when viewed in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more. See {[00144 and Fig.5]}.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis also considers the dependent claims.
Dependent claim 2 and 11 (similar scope and language) is directed towards, “The method according to claim 1, wherein said determining, based on the evaluation index, the sample size of experimental samples in the experimental scheme comprises: determining, by using an independent-samples test method, the sample size of experimental samples under the evaluation index; or determining, by using a paired-samples test method, the sample size of experimental samples under the evaluation index”.
The claims are describing methods of determining the evaluation index, sample sizes using various samples. The claims are describing a fundamental Mathematical concept in terms of performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution. As such, the claim is also directed towards a mathematical concept under an abstract idea of groupings. The system is not a technical improvement and merely implementing the abstract idea using generic mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are covered under certain methods of mathematical concepts of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 3 and 12 (similar scope and language) is directed towards, “The method according to claim 2, further comprising, prior to said determining, based on the evaluation index, the sample size of experimental samples in the experimental scheme: determining a testing error under the experimental scheme and a standard deviation of the experimental samples, wherein the testing error comprises a probability of true-rejecting error and a probability of false-accepting error in the experimental scheme, and wherein the standard deviation comprises a pre-test standard deviation of each of the experimental samples under the outcome variable in the independent-samples test method or a differential standard deviation of each of the experimental samples under the outcome variable in the paired-samples test method”.
The claim is describing a method of determining a test error and a standard deviation of an experimental scheme. The claim is describing a fundamental Mathematical concept in terms of performing a probability of true or false in the experimental scheme to generate a variable outcome. As such, the claim is also directed towards a mathematical concept under an abstract idea of groupings. The system is not a technical improvement and merely implementing the abstract idea using generic mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are covered under certain methods of mathematical concepts of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 4 and 13 (similar scope and language), are further describing the abstract idea and includes additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards (as represented in claim 2 and 3), “The method according to claim 3, wherein said determining, by using the independent-samples test method, the sample size of experimental samples under the evaluation index comprises: determining, based on the testing error and the pre-test standard deviation in the standard deviations, the sample size of experimental samples under the evaluation index”.
The independent-sample test method is described in the specification {[0055]}, page 12. The independent-sample method is merely described in terms of a pretest standard deviation. There is no technical element to provide how the experimental samples are mathematically accomplished. As such, the claim is not describing a mathematical improvement, but rather generic mathematical implementation of abstract idea(s). Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 5 and 14 (similar scope and language) are directed towards, “ The method according to claim 3, wherein said determining, by using the paired-samples test method, the sample size of experimental samples under the evaluation index comprises: obtaining a correlation coefficient between the experimental group and the control group that consist of the experimental samples, the correlation coefficient indicating a correlation between outcome variables of respective experimental samples in the experimental group and outcome variables of respective experimental samples in the control group; and determining, based on the testing error, the differential standard deviation in the standard deviation and the correlation coefficient, the sample size of experimental samples under the evaluation index”.
The claims are describing methods of determining an outcome using a paired sample and sample size method. The claims are describing a fundamental Mathematical concept in terms of pairing sample test and size methods in an experimental scheme to generate a variable outcome. As such, the claim is also directed towards a mathematical concept under an abstract idea of groupings. The paired-sample method is merely implementing an abstract idea using generic mathematical concepts. There is no technical element to provide how the experimental samples are mathematically accomplished. As such, the claim is not describing a mathematical improvement, but rather generic mathematical implementation of abstract idea(s). Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 6 and 15 (similar scope and language) are directed towards, “The method according to claim 5, wherein said obtaining the correlation coefficient between the experimental group and the control group that consist of the experimental samples comprises: performing pregrouping processing on each of the experimental samples prior to obtaining the experimental scheme, and obtaining a simulation correlation coefficient between two simulated groups that are obtained subsequent to the pre-grouping processing as the correlation coefficient between the experimental group and the control group”.
The claim is describing a method of using preforming grouping process on experimental samples to obtain a correlation coefficient. The claim is describing a fundamental Mathematical concept in terms of performing a pre-grouping process in an experimental scheme to generate a variable outcome. As such, the claim is also directed towards a mathematical concept under an abstract idea of groupings. The system is not a technical improvement and merely implementing the abstract idea using generic mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is covered under certain methods of mathematical concepts of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 7 and 16 (similar scope and language) are further describing the abstract idea beyond those identified above. The claim is directed towards (as represented in claim 2 and 3), “The method according to claim 2, further comprising, subsequent to said determining, based on the evaluation index, the sample size of experimental samples in the experimental scheme: determining a sample loss rate, the sample loss rate representing a ratio of a number of reduced experimental samples to the sample size of experimental samples; and determining, based on the sample loss rate, a sample supplement quantity in the experimental scheme, and updating the sample size of experimental samples based on the sample supplement quantity”.
The claim is describing a method of determining experimental samples based on the evaluation index and sample size. The claim is describing a fundamental Mathematical concept in terms of performing a pre -grouping process in an experimental scheme to generate a variable outcome. A person with a pen and paper would be able to perform an experimental sample to determine a variable outcome, which is a fundamental mathematical concept of testing an experimental sample. As such, the claim is also directed towards a mathematical concept under an abstract idea of groupings. The system is not a technical improvement and merely implementing the abstract idea using generic mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are covered under certain methods of mathematical concepts of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 is directed towards “The method according to claim 1, wherein the experimental variables further comprise a control variable, the control variable comprising a variable other than the causal variable and affecting the outcome variable; and wherein a variation caused by the experimental samples on the outcome variable under the control variable does not exceed a predetermined variation”.
The claims are describing methods of determining a control variable in the experimental scheme. The claims are describing a fundamental Mathematical concept in terms of obtaining the experimental samples using the control variable in the experimental scheme to generate a variable outcome. The claim is also directed towards a mathematical concept under an abstract idea of groupings. The system is not a technical improvement and merely implementing the abstract idea using generic mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are covered under certain methods of mathematical concepts of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 9 and 18 (similar scope and language) is directed towards “The method according to claim 8, wherein: the experimental scheme comprises an experimental scheme in the field of education; the experimental samples in the experimental scheme comprise students; and the control variable in the experimental variables comprises at least one of a grade, a class, a score variation trend, and a current score level of the students in the experimental scheme”.
The claim is describing a determination of experimental scheme that comprises at least a grade, class, score and current score level of an experimental scheme. The claim is describing a mathematical concept in terms of obtaining the experimental scheme using experimental samples. The claim is also directed towards a mathematical concept under an abstract idea of groupings. The system is not a technical improvement and merely implementing the abstract idea using generic mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are covered under certain methods of mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. The casual variable method is merely invoking generic components directed to a manner of estimating a variable outcome, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts covered under the mathematical concept of abstract idea groupings. The claim is based on describing a mathematical relationship of using an independent sample test method to organize information and manipulate information through mathematical correlations to estimate an outcome of a variable. As such, the claim is not describing a technical improvement, but rather generic mathematical implementation of abstract idea(s). Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed invention is based on describing a mathematical relationship of using sample test method to organize information and manipulate information through mathematical correlations to estimate an outcome.
(Currently amended) Dependent claim 17 is directed towards, “The computer device according to claim 10, wherein the experimental variables further comprise a control variable, the control variable comprising a variable other than the causal variable and affecting the outcome variable; and wherein a variation caused by the plurality of experimental samples on the outcome variable under the control variable does not exceed[[ing]] a predetermined variation.” The claims are describing a device in determining a control variable in the experimental scheme. The claims are describing a fundamental Mathematical concept in terms of obtaining the experimental samples using the control variable in the experimental scheme to generate a variable outcome. The claim is also directed towards a mathematical concept under an abstract idea of groupings. The system is not a technical improvement and merely implementing the abstract idea using generic mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are covered under certain methods of mathematical concepts of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 20 is further describing the abstract idea and includes an additional element beyond those identified above. “The method according to claim 8, further comprising: simulating a control test by copying a real flow online”.
The claims are describing methods of determining a control variable in the experimental scheme. The claims are describing a fundamental Mathematical concept in terms of obtaining the experimental samples using the control variable in the experimental scheme to generate a variable outcome. The claim is also directed towards a mathematical concept under an abstract idea of groupings. The system is not a technical improvement and merely implementing the
abstract idea using generic mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the
claims are covered under certain methods of mathematical concepts of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
In response to the argument filled January 08, 2026 on pages 13 – 15 regarding the 101 rejections.
The amendment done on Claim 19 to recite “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” have been accepted. These changes have been approved by the examiner.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, and as amended provide an improvement in the field of control tests and technical functioning of computer devices. The applicant argues that these are additional elements “A control test method, applied to an online platform and implemented by a processor of a computer device in the online platform, the causal variable being used to characterize a configurable element on the online platform that influences user behavior, and the outcome variable comprising a user interaction behavior indicator obtained by analyzing user behavior logs, obtaining, based on the determined sample size of experimental samples, experimental samples in the experimental scheme from a user database of the online platform," and "determining a service configuration of the online platform based on an experimental result”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that the system is directed to a mental process and a certain method of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) “Mental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 19 3, 197 (1978).
Applicant also argues that the claims provide specific technical improvement as "applied to an online platform and implemented by a processor of a computer device in the online platform". The Applicant also argues that by incorporating additional elements such as "analyzing user behavior logs, obtaining the configuration of the online platform based on an experimental result," the claimed configuration of amended claim 1 is not a mere scenario appended to an abstract idea, but a technical solution that integrates statistical methods with the platform's data flow and control logic. The Applicant further states that, the claimed method does not merely perform calculations or replicate mental work, but performs the quantization processing and determines the evaluation index in the precise manner as claimed so as to transform the alleged abstract idea into a clear, practical application: determining the service configuration of the online platform based on the experimental result.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees the claims provide an improvement in the field of control tests and technical functioning of computer devices. The claims are describing methods
analyzing user behavior logs, obtaining the configuration of the online platform based on an experimental result, determining the evaluation index and sample sizes using various samples.
The claims are describing a fundamental Mathematical concept in terms of performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution. As such, the claim is also directed towards a mathematical concept under an abstract idea of groupings. The system is not a technical improvement and merely implementing the abstract idea using generic mathematical concepts. See applicants’ specification {[00126]}.
The Examiner maintains these claims recite an abstract idea.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Examiner has maintained the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jiang et al (US2019/0034516A1) – directed to methods of sampling an input variable.
S. Awaghad, "SCEM: Smart & effective crowd management with a novel scheme of big data analytics," 2016 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Washington, DC, USA, 2016, pp. 2000-2003.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR CHIGOZIRIM ESONU whose telephone number is (571)272-4883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached on (571) 270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, vis it: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VICTOR CHIGOZIRIM ESONU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629