Examiner thanks Attorney Laureanti for reducing the issue to advance prosection by canceling 4 11 18 thereby removing 1 more obstacle to allowance (the 112d rejetion).
AIA
DETAILED ACTION
STATUS OF CLAIM SET 6
RCE Claims 1-20 filed 5/12/25 examined
Amended 1 8 17
Canceled 4 11 18
New none
18367914 filed 09/13/2023 is a Con of 17107087 filed 11/30/2020 now U.S. Pat 11790268
17166563 filed 02/03/2021 Provisional 62983877 filed 03/02/2020 now US Pat 12182728
17340335 filed on 06/07/2021 is CIP of 17166563 filed 02/03/2021
Response to Remarks
Applicant response fully considered but not unfortunately not yet persuasive.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of simulating is running through a trial of what might happen and “separate the wheat from the chaff”, i.e. the signal from the noise + initiating. What is this initiating? Examiner uses broadest reasonable interpretation. Those of us who’ve worked in large corporation would interpret this as the VP of Engineering at the end of a meeting telling a project manager that his/her is project is a “go”, i.e. someone saying something, the VP of engineering nods is head vertically (yes) instead of horizontally(no), in some language clicking one’s tongue to me go or start or initiate or yes. It could mean any of a number of things. Reader, too, has no way of knowing what component is (tangible, intangible, software, hardware etc). The 2 amendments of 9/18/2025 don’t get the claims past 101. The a) weights are the idea itself, and the b) final step of manufacturing a component fails MPEP 2106.05f,g for neither integrating the idea into a practical application nor adding significantly more than the idea itself (compare to In re Brown (CAFC 2016)(using scissors to cut hair is not dispositive, claims 101 ineligible). Designating something a signal for positive versus background or noise for negative is another way of saying deconfounding.
101
As to applicant argument that
Integrates into a practical application
Examiner
Applicant simply implements an idea by computer.
2
As to applicant argument that
Not Practically performed in the mind remarks p4
Examiner
That depends on the amount of data and the machine learning. Regression with few data points can be done in the mind or with pencil and paper. Carl Friederich Gauss 1777-1855.
3
As to applicant argument that
Examiner
Not math and not math per se remarks p4
A formula is not dispositive. Deconfounding ML cyclic boosting is math regardless of a formula.
4
As to applicant argument that
Examiner
ML must use a computer
The machine is optional e.g. ML as regression which predates computers. That sometimes a computer is used as in Langley is not dispositive on the question whether ML always requires a computer.
5
As to applicant argument that
MPEP 2106.04a1vii says training a NN is not an idea
Examiner
Examiner did not assert training a NN is an idea
103
The amendment is just another way of saying deconfounding so unfortunately the amendment doesn’t change the claim, and neither broadens it nor narrows it. Wick 38:00 shows broadest reasonable interpretation of initiating
Discerning causation from correlation and determining the actual cause and classification of A versus B (22:25) is the same thing as the deconfounding. Wick3 “Confounding … randomized controlled trials”(Wick3 p7) .
As to applicant argument that
clarity
Wick points out the methods he first used in Physics can be used for demand forecasting. From watching the video, one can see that’s what he is saying. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination because the advantage of using influence in an advertising system; the type of data is just a workpiece, a data label (physics, advertising, promotion, etc).
The claim elements are absolutely mapped to the references by juxtaposing claim with figure and text from the references
Deconfounding is a basic aspect of Data Science, as Wick states.
The amendment is just another way of saying deconfounding so unfortunately the amendment doesn’t change the claim, and neither broadens it nor narrows it.
As to Lei not teaching conducting … randomized …, examiner didn’t assert Lei taught that.
Attorney attempts a switch by asserting Lei doesn’t teach A/B (clearly taught in Wick) but the 103 is a combination where Wick teaches A/B and deconfounding combined with Lei for the business application of the model.
As to applicant argument that
Wick2 is quantum mechanics
But that argument assumes Wick has nothing to say about the application of the methods he used in physics and their application elsewhere. However, the assumption isn’t warranted; Felix Wick makes clear in the video: the workpiece doesn’t matter and that he used certain methods in physics is no obstacles to their being used in demand forecasting. Although attorney says (remarks p22) one cannot make the connection between physics and demand forecasting, Wick says otherwise. At 3:00-4:00 Wick says that in the end its all data.
Examiner did point Applicant to a particular part of Feindt saying cyclic boosting using various terms all referring to boost. Examiner told applicant examiner relies of Feindt for boost and all applicant need do is look at the reference saying boost. Feindt mentions boost 11 times.
As to applicant argument that
Ex parte Desjardins (remarks p14-18
Examiner
Applicant is not improving computer functionality or an improvement to other technology or a technical field but rather computer implementing an abstract idea using a computer as a tool. The Desjardins Appeals Review Panel credited benefits of reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining and perseveration of performance attributes, overcoming the problem of catastrophic forgetting are unrelated to the Applicant’s post-solution activity of “transmitting … instructions”. Appellant has a business problem. Appellant provides a business solution. Initiating … manufacturing is a business dictate and fundamental economics. It’s the same as saying increase capacity to supply (as in the supply and demand of fundamental economics)
The claim(s) is/are directed to CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN BEHAVIOR.
The independent claims implement the abstract idea by generic elements. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic in any computer implementation. The claims in ordered combination are just the abstract idea implemented on a computer; the ordered combination limitations “spell out” how to computer implement it, Enfish.
During prosecution, applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude. See, e.g., Johnson & Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc). As stated in Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (CAFC 2008):
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation”
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.
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The Claim(s) is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
Step 1
The claims fall within the four 101 statutory categories (1 process 8 machine 15 article of manufacture).
PNG
media_image1.png
899
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 2a
The invention IDs cause (factor) of effect (demand) – what’s cause of (economic) effect?
Applicant claims the idea of marketing (adjusting product mix based on expected demand). The additional elements are using ML and a computer and, in dependent claims, the additional element of display (transmitting instruction to change marketing mix). The claims change supply based on demand, fundamental economics.
PNG
media_image2.png
211
235
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claims are to abstract ideas:
O MENTAL STEPS
O MATH
O CERTAIN METHOD OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
Applicant takes an idea and then applies it with generic additional elements generally applied --with computer and machine learning.
PNG
media_image3.png
260
218
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This fundamental concept of subtracting systematic error is math applied to marketing data for organizing human activity. All the Applicant’s other steps and math funneled toward the calculation. This is organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (organizing human activity and mathematical relationship/formula).
Identifying external factors, generating external causal factors, correcting i.e. DECONFOUNDING IS OLD MATH and CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY. It’s fundamental economics and long-standing commercial practice.
From www.en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding. Applicant simply applies it (implement by generic additional elements generally applied namely computer & machine learning).
Training/processing with machine learning is an idea itself of organizing information through mathematical correlations, using categories to organize, store and transmit information. Machine learning is old and well-known (NPL: “Approaches to Machine Learning, P. Langley at Carnegie-Mellon University (1984) and the references it refers to from more than a half-century ago).
PNG
media_image4.png
129
387
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Exemplary Claim 1
1. A [ computer-implemented] method, comprising:
O receiving, with a server comprising a [processor and memory], historical sales data for one or more past time periods and corresponding historical data for one or more causal variables;
O deconfounding, by the server, a cause-effect relationship of historical sales data and historical data on the one or more causal variables by conducting one or more randomized controlled A/B group trials that reduce an effect of one or more confounders on one or more variables;
O defining, by the [server], one or more sample weights for statistical background subtraction of the historical data ,wherein samples comprising a signal group each receive a positive weight and samples comprising a background group each receive a negative weight;
O performing, by the [server], statistical background subtraction on the historical data to statistically subtract non-influenced and non-relevant data from the historical data
O training, by the [server], by an iterative approach comprising cyclic boosting in additive regression mode, a first machine learning model to predict an absolute individual causal effect on a considered demand quantity; and
O predicting, by the [server], with the first machine learning model, an absolute individual causal effect on one or more considered demand quantities during a prediction period by training a second machine learning model
O initiating, by the server, manufacturing of one or more components base, at least in part, on the predict absolute individual causal effect on the one or more considered demand quantities
[Generic additional element]
+
Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Behavior,
Math,
Mental Steps
The broadest reasonable interpretation of simulating is running through a trial of what might happen and “separate the wheat from the chaff”, i.e. the signal from the noise + initiating. What is this initiating? Examiner uses broadest reasonable interpretation. Those of us who’ve worked in large corporation would interpret this as the VP of Engineering at the end of a meeting telling a project manager that his/her is project is a “go”, i.e. something saying something. It could mean any of a number of things. Reader has no way of knowing what component is (tangible, intangible, software, hardware etc). The 2 amendments of 9/18/2025 don’t get the claims past 101. The a) weights are the idea itself, and the b) final step of manufacturing a component fails MPEP 2106.05f,g for neither integrating the idea into a practical application nor adding significantly more than the idea itself (compare to In re Brown (CAFC 2016)(using scissors to cut hair is not dispositive, claims 101 ineligible).
Simulating can be done without a device (Merriam-Webster 3a, below).
Or with a simulating device (Merriam-Webster (3b, below).
PNG
media_image5.png
436
759
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The claim determines or calculates an effect on demand (claim 1 last ¶)
This is known by other names:
difference (determine what difference it would make to do this instead of that, A instead of B) or
marginal return (determine effect of doing this instead of that).
The claim is simulating demand.
Appellant Claims An Abstract Idea
What (amount of) difference does it make (A/B, e.g. hiring … compared to not hiring)?
Given the Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the claims steps set forth
Mental Processes such as
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
In claims 1, 11 determining improvement from hiring an expert is a (FR p2-3)
MENTAL PROCESS, Concepts Relating To Data Comparisons That Can Be Performed Mentally Or Are Analogous To Human Mental Work
LONG STANDING COMMERCIAL PRACTICE
ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
Appellant computer-implements Long Standing Commercial Practice & Basic Economics.
Computer implemented hedging
Bilski
Computer implemented clearinghouse
Alice
Computer implemented mental process, long standing commercial practice, basic economics
HERE
The abstract idea is also known as A/B testing.
PNG
media_image6.png
691
1295
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The claim is directed to the idea of deciding a difference it would make doing this not that (“effect … demand”).
The independent claims implement the abstract idea by generic elements – medium, processor. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic in any computer implementation. The claims in ordered combination are just the abstract idea implemented on a computer; the ordered combination limitations “spell out” how to computer implement it, Enfish.
Alice
clearinghouse
computer implemented
Bilski
hedge
computer implemented
Ultramercial
Advertising
computer implemented
Here
Simulate demand
computer implemented
Here the data label is retail and demand. Applicant is retail and demand forecasting using causal inference machine learning with statistical background subtraction.
Calculating a number (demand) is MATH, like statistical analysis in (SAP America v InvestPic (CAFC 2018). Here, the number relates to marketing, instead of investment there (SAP America v InvestPic (CAFC 2018) p.10 slip opinion). It is CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY. It’s fundamental economics and long-standing commercial practice.
Still further the limitation is math, calculation based on numbers. The claim presents a calculation based on another calculation, and data gathering, not significantly more.
The independent claims implement the abstract idea by generic computer, generic storage, generic storage, processor. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic in any computer implementation. The claims in ordered combination are just the abstract idea implemented on a computer, the ordered combination “spelling out” how to computer implement it, Intellectual Ventures.
Similar to the clearinghouse in Alice and the computer implemented hedge in Bilski, here the idea is applied generally as pointed out by Applicant’s Specification
Prong 1 answered “YES”, the next question in Prong 2 is whether there is an integrated practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant takes an idea and then applies it with generic additional elements generally applied -- with computer and machine learning.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – computer implemented, computer readable disk or storage or medium, storage device, processor to perform the claim steps. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for lack of any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The steps are computer-implemented, but one could do the calculations with pen and paper, abacus, slide-rule etc. The additional elements present only a particular technological environment.
The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations (those beyond the abstract idea) do not improve the technical field that the abstract idea limitations invoke. Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers" (citing Bilski 561 US at 610).
The limitation of machine learning is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer
Dependent claims
CLAIM 2 9 16 the idea itself + targeted marketing (coupon)
CLAIM 3 10 17 the idea itself
CLAIM 4 11 18 (CANCELED) the idea itself, altering parameters of fundamental economics with generic element generally applied
CLAIM 5 12 19 and 6 13 and 7 14 20 the idea itself, display instruction to alter supply based on corrected demand MPEP 2106.05
Step 2b
Applicant takes an idea and then applies it with generic additional elements generally applied -- with computer and machine learning.
Viewed as a whole, the claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea amount(s) to a ‘computer’, ‘memory’, ‘processor’ ‘server’ which use generic elements, MPEP 2016.05(d). Applicant specification says additional elements are generic.
The claim limitations alone or in ordered combination do not improve upon the technical field to which the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of any device itself. Wiley Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Engineering (2009) is a general technical reference with these generic elements, which was already provided to Applicant. The reference is the kind a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “hanging on their wall“, e.g. as a pdf shortcut or icon on wallpaper of one’s computer. Display (presentation) is mentioned 427 times includes display (Wiley p.2261), memory at p. 2263 (mentioned 1700+times in Wiley), database, server p.125, server 610 times (at least e.g. p.1982), processor 639 times (e.g. p. 1242-1243), database 1728 times (e.g. p.1253), storage medium (e.g. p.131), computer (3553 times, e.g. p.283).
The additional elements alone or in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generic linking use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are generic activities previously known to the industry. Moreover, these generic limitations do not lead to an integrated practical application because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers"(citing Bilski 561 US at 610). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to an integrated practical application. The claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself.
Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers"(citing Bilski 561 US at 610).
Moreover, mere recitation of a machine or medium in the preamble does not make a claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101, as seen in the Board of Patent Appeals Informative Opinion Ex Parte Langemyr (Appeal 2008-1495). Moreover, mere mention of a piece of a computer or processing device does not confer patentability. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank International ("Alice Corp") 573 US __ (2014). Incorporating the two-step test espoused in its recent decision in Mayo v. Prometheus 566 U.S. ___ (2012), the Court describes a first inquiry as to whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. If so, the Court requires a second inquiry as to whether the elements, individually or in combination, “transform” the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible invention. The Court described this second step as a search for an inventive concept, “i.e., an element or combination sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic elements that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abreact idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, medium do something to improved hardware functionality.
The further elements of the claims are merely directed to further abstract ideas and in ordered combination pose a list of abstract ideas, and invoke merely as a tool what is generic. There is no improvement in these items, but rather they are invoked as a tool to solve a business problem (targeted marketing), not a technical problem.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic computer processors and software that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic in any computer implementation. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abstract idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, storage do something nongeneric such that Applicant has improved computer functionality. Applicant presents an idea for which computers are invoked as a tool.
To find some inventive concept, one can look to Applicant's own words in Spec ¶ 2. There, he states the problem addressed is marketing forecasting, RETAIL AND DEMAND FORECASTING.
Here, the claims neither improve the technological infrastructure nor provide particular solutions to challenges. Rather, in ordered combination the claim limitations spell out the steps of calculating using generic technology (storage, computer, storage, processor – at a high level of generality).
In addition to these indisputably generic features, Applicant did not invent any of those features, and the claims do not recite them in a manner that produces a result that overrides the generic use of these known features. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When viewed as an ordered combination, the proposed claims recite no more than the sort of “perfectly” generic computer components employed in a customary manner that we have held insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims fail step 2b too.
Claim rejections 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim[ 4 11 18 ] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The language is in the independent claim (signal … positive …) Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for obviousness rejections in this Office Action:
a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made
MPEP 2123: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for ALL they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1983) A reference may be relied upon for ALL that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).”
References already provided in US Ser 17166563, 17107087, 17340335
PNG
media_image3.png
260
218
media_image3.png
Greyscale
From www.en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding
PNG
media_image7.png
818
1294
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 USC 103 over
Wick (NPL) in view of
Lei US 20190188536 in view of
Wick2 (NPL) in view of
Feindt (NPL: M, Feindt KIT Advanced event Reweighting Multivariate Analysis (MVA) training (Year: 2011)) slide 23-30
Wick3 (NPL: Cyclic Boosting – an explainable supervised ML algorithm, by Felix Wick, Michael Feindt)(2019)
The Wick, Wick2, Wick3 references and Feindt (authored by Wick) are like 1, different sides of 1 cube
CLAIM 1 8 15
O receiving, with a server comprising a processor and memory, historical sales data for one or more past time periods and corresponding historical data for one or more causal variables
Felix Wick: From the Life of a Data Scientist 17:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo0Ne2pYWW4
O deconfounding, by the server, a cause-effect relationship of historical sales data and historical data on the one or more causal variables by conducting one or more randomized controlled A/B group trials that reduce an effect of one or more confounders on one or more variables
Deconfounding ≈ extract “patterns”.
Felix Wick: From the Life of a Data Scientist - YouTube 20:00-21:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo0Ne2pYWW4 “leave some out …. … this is really important … one should always think about if one is developing a new method …. We are coming to the core …. This is something probably everyone knows”
PNG
media_image8.png
856
1295
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
795
1079
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
915
1335
media_image10.png
Greyscale
NOT EXPLICIT in Wick is exact term historical sales data
Lei US 20190188536
(LEI’536, FIG. 8; ¶¶ [0002] and [0026]: a network of facilities/retail stores that together deliver products to consumers is commonly referred to as a "supply chain" network; a specialized point of sale ("POS") terminal 100 gaenerates the transactional data and historical sales data, e.g., data concerning transactions of each item/SKU at each retail store, used to forecast demand) (LEI’536, FIG. 5; ¶¶ [0065]-[0076]: use the optimized feature sets as input to forecasting algorithms to generate forecasting models; for each training dataset D(i) extracted/pooled from historical sale/supply chain data, one of the following machine learning algorithms are used to produce the model M(i): linear regression, Support Vector Machine ("SVM"), and Artificial Neural Networks ("ANN"); to forecast future1 demand, for each data point x, M(i) is iteratively applied to the input to produce the final results y as follows: y = sum( f(M(i), x) * w'(i) ), where y is the forecasted demand, and f is the function to create the forecast, corresponding to the model)
(LEI’536, FIGS. 6 and 7A-B; ¶¶ [0083]-[0089]: FIG. 6 shows promotion effects for each promotion 1-10, which are product/location specific but not time period specific; FIGS. 7A-B show a comparison of predictions for each week during a 13 week sales period and for a given store/SKU, wherein row 701 provides a baseline demand, row 702 provides seasonality, and rows 702-712 provide an indication (as indicated by an "X"), for each promotion, whether that promotion was active during the corresponding week; row 713 indicates actual sales during the corresponding time period; for the prediction of promotion effects, row 714 indicates the predictions of sales for each week from round A, in which all data points are used using known methods of using all available data; rows 715-719 indicates the predictions/estimated using each of rounds 1-5 for each time period, and row 720 is the average prediction from Rounds 1-5)
It would have been obvious to combine Wick/Lei. A person of ordinary skill in the art wanting to learn about the Life of A Data Scientist would see Wick, see that a Data Scientist can use the methods just as easily on demand forecasting (21:31) as on physics. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine primary reference and the additional reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination because the advantage of using influence in an advertising system; the type of data is just a workpiece, a data label (physics, advertising, promotion, etc). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
And applying Data Science to Pricing, Promotion, Dynamic Cataloging, Dynamic Forecasting such as predicting Tomorrow’s Sales or an Insurance Claim instead of the arcane area of physics is obvious Design Incentives or Market Forces Prompting Variations.
This application of Data Science to Business Method instead of Physics is Simple Substitution
NOT EXPLICIT in Wick
[Wingdings font/0xA2] performing statistical background subtraction on the historical data to statistically subtract non-influenced and non-relevant data from the historical data
Wick2, 2.1
Wick2 (NPL: Felix Wick, Michael Feindt, Wick2 Baryon Spectroscopy (Year:2011)) 2.1
It would have been obvious to combine Wick/Wick2. A person of ordinary skill in the art wanting to learn about the Life of A Data Scientist would see Wick and consult the works of the same author and find Wick2. A person of ordinary skill in the art wanting to learn about the Life of A Data Scientist would see Wick, see that a Data Scientist can use the methods just as easily on demand forecasting (21:31) as on physics. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine primary reference and the additional reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination because the advantage of using influence in an advertising system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods. And applying Data Science to Pricing, Promotion, Dynamic Cataloging, Dynamic Forecasting such as predicting Tomorrow’s Sales or an Insurance Claim instead of the arcane area of physics is obvious Design Incentives or Market Forces Prompting Variations.
This application of Data Science to Business Method is Simple Substitution
PNG
media_image11.png
825
1318
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
830
1302
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
680
1194
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
815
1293
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
833
1322
media_image15.png
Greyscale
NOT EXPLICIT in Wick is the exact term historical sales
[Wingdings font/0xA2]deconfounding the cause-effect relationship of historical sales data and historical data on the one or more causal variables by conducting one or more randomized controlled A/B group trials
PNG
media_image9.png
795
1079
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(LEI’536, FIG. 8; ¶¶ [0002] and [0026]: a network of facilities/retail stores that together deliver products to consumers is commonly referred to as a "supply chain" network; a specialized point of sale ("POS") terminal 100 generates the transactional data and historical sales data, e.g., data concerning transactions of each item/SKU at each retail store, used to forecast demand) (LEI’536, FIG. 5; ¶¶ [0065]-[0076]: use the optimized feature sets as input to forecasting algorithms to generate forecasting models; for each training dataset D(i) extracted/pooled from historical sale/supply chain data, one of the following machine learning algorithms are used to produce the model M(i): linear regression, Support Vector Machine ("SVM"), and Artificial Neural Networks ("ANN"); to forecast future2 demand, for each data point x, M(i) is iteratively applied to the input to produce the final results y as follows: y = sum( f(M(i), x) * w'(i) ), where y is the forecasted demand, and f is the function to create the forecast, corresponding to the model)
(LEI’536, FIGS. 6 and 7A-B; ¶¶ [0083]-[0089]: FIG. 6 shows promotion effects for each promotion 1-10, which are product/location specific but not time period specific; FIGS. 7A-B show a comparison of predictions for each week during a 13 week sales period and for a given store/SKU, wherein row 701 provides a baseline demand, row 702 provides seasonality, and rows 702-712 provide an indication (as indicated by an "X"), for each promotion, whether that promotion was active during the corresponding week; row 713 indicates actual sales during the corresponding time period; for the prediction of promotion effects, row 714 indicates the predictions of sales for each week from round A, in which all data points are used using known methods of using all available data; rows 715-719 indicates the predictions/estimated using each of rounds 1-5 for each time period, and row 720 is the average prediction from Rounds 1-5) (Palinginis, 116 in FIGS. 1 and 5A-B; ¶¶ [0044] and [0086]: the predicted demand may be presented to a user through a graphical user interface that enables the user to interactively and iteratively select or refine one or more parameters of the promotion in order to view or adjust factors relevant to the proposed promotion; graphical user interface 500 may be presented on a computer system as a user-friendly, explicit visualization of the predicted demand values generated by of the blended models).
FEINDT
NOT EXPLICIT in Wick is cyclic boosting
O training, by the server, by an iterative approach comprising cyclic boosting in additive regression mode, a first machine learning model to predict an absolute individual causal effect on a considered demand quantity
Feindt shows the teaching without the exact words cyclic boosting
Wick3 uses the exact term cyclic boosting
Feindt (NPL: Michael Feindt KIT Advanced event Reweighting for Multivariate Analysis (MVA) training (Year: 2011)) Powerpoint slide 23-30
Author of Wick is Wick.
Authors of Wick2 are both Wick and Feindt
and it would have been obvious from Wick2 to consult the works of Wick and Feindt
and find Feindt (NPL: Michael Feindt KIT Advanced event Reweighting for Multivariate Analysis (MVA) training (Year: 2011)) and Powerpoint slide 23-30.
It would have been obvious looking at Wick’s teaching (a discriminator or deconfounder) and look for similar teachings and find Feindt (another discriminator or deconfounder) and combine Wick and Feindt for the predictable result of optimization by use of cyclic boosting whether one calls it boost chain or cyclic boosting. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods
WICK3
NOT EXPLICT IN Wick, Feindt is term cyclic boosting (cf Feindt ‘chain boost’) but Wick3 has it
O predicting, by the server, with the first machine learning model, an absolute individual causal effect on one or more considered demand quantities during a prediction period by training a second machine learning model
Wick shows the predict and as to individual see each of
Feindt (at least individual event weight…) and
Wick3(at least 5.1 individual causal effect)
PNG
media_image16.png
558
735
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Wick already shows 2 models 21:45 (classification and regression) and w/i each shows 2 bullets.
Wick then goes into training
PNG
media_image17.png
729
1052
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
795
1079
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to combine Wick/Wick3. A person of ordinary skill in the art wanting to learn about the Life of A Data Scientist would see Wick and consult the works of the same author and find Wick3. A person of ordinary skill in the art wanting to learn about the Life of A Data Scientist would see Wick, see that a Data Scientist can use the methods just as easily on demand forecasting as on physics. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine primary reference and the additional reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination because the advantage of using influence in an advertising system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. And applying Data Science to Pricing, Promotion, Dynamic Cataloging, Dynamic Forecasting such as predicting Tomorrow’s Sales or an Insurance Claim instead of the arcane area of physics is obvious Design Incentives or Market Forces Prompting Variations. Wick and Wick3 are the same author discussing the same issues. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
PNG
media_image10.png
915
1335
media_image10.png
Greyscale
NOT EXPLICT IN Wick is exact word deconfounding
It would have been obvious looking at Wick to search for more by the same guy on the same subject and find Wick2’s concept of deconfounding
Wick2 (NPL: Felix Wick, Michael Feindt, Wick2 Baryon Spectroscopy (Year:2011))
Wick2, 2.1 Wick2 starting at Ch. 2
It would have been obvious to combine Wick/Wick2.
A person of ordinary skill in the art wanting to learn about the Life of A Data Scientist would see Wick and consult the works of the same author and find Wick2.
A person of ordinary skill in the art wanting to learn about the Life of A Data Scientist would see Wick, see that a Data Scientist can use the methods just as easily on demand forecasting (21:31) as on physics. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine primary reference and the additional reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination because the advantage of using influence in an advertising system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
And applying Data Science to Pricing, Promotion, Dynamic Cataloging, Dynamic Forecasting such as predicting Tomorrow’s Sales or an Insurance Claim instead of the arcane area of physics is obvious Design Incentives or Market Forces Prompting Variations.
This application of Data Science to Business Method is Simple Substitution
PNG
media_image11.png
825
1318
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
830
1302
media_image12.png
Greyscale
O defining, by the [server], one or more sample weights for statistical background subtraction of the historical data ,wherein samples comprising a signal group each receive a positive weight and samples comprising a background group each receive a negative weight;
See Feindt titled “Reweighting…”
And
Wick e.g. 22:00-24:0 A/B and 26:00-27:00 weights w1, w2, w2
Motivation to combine above.
O initiating, by the server, manufacturing of one or more components base, at least in part, on the predict absolute individual causal effect on the one or more considered demand quantities
Wick at least 38:00 take live in production environment, 48:00-50:00
CLAIM 2 9 16
claim 1 8 15, wherein a
casual variable comprises a sending of a personalized coupon
Wick promotions 17:04
PNG
media_image7.png
818
1294
media_image7.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 3 10 17
claim 1 8 15, further comprising:
restricting, by the server, a learning of a causal factor between a feature describing seasonality over a year and a target to a smooth sinusoidal dependency
Wick3 see for example
PNG
media_image18.png
409
323
media_image18.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 4 11 18
claim 1 8 15, further comprising:
assigning, by the server, one or more positive sample weights and one or more negative sample weights to one or more samples of the one or more randomized controlled A/B group trials
Wick e.g. 22:00-24:0 A/B and 26:00-27:00 weights w1, w2, w2
PNG
media_image19.png
830
1070
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
861
1111
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Feindt (NPL: Michael Feindt KIT Advanced event Reweighting for Multivariate Analysis (MVA) training (Year: 2011)) Powerpoint slide 23-30
Author of Wick is Wick.
Authors of Wick2 are both Wick and Feindt
and it would have been obvious from Wick2 to consult the works of Wick and Feindt
and find Feindt (NPL: Michael Feindt KIT Advanced event Reweighting for Multivariate Analysis (MVA) training (Year: 2011)) and Powerpoint slide 23-30.
It would have been obvious to combine Wick and Feindt for optimization by use of cyclic boosting. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods
CLAIM 5 12 19
claim 1 8 15, further comprising: predicting, by the server, one or more what-if volume predictions from one or more sets of hypothetical causal factors.
Wick3 at least section 5 (“what-if scenarios….)
CLAIM 6 13 20
claim 1 8 15, further comprising:
predicting, by the server, one or more individual causal effects on gross margin
Wick3 at least section 4 Forecast Demand and 5 Causality (“what-if scenarios….) and Fig 1 2 & text
CLAIM 7 14
claim 1 8 15, further comprising:
modelling, by the server, demand as a negative binomial or Poisson-Gamma distribution.
Wick3 at least
PNG
media_image21.png
106
304
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
bbaggot@uspto.gov
Pertinent prior art cited but not relied upon
(Palinginis, 116 in FIGS. 1 and 5A-B; ¶¶ [0044] and [0086]: the predicted demand may be presented to a user through a graphical user interface that enables the user to interactively and iteratively select or refine one or more parameters of the promotion in order to view or adjust factors relevant to the proposed promotion; GUI 500 may be presented on a computer system as a user-friendly, explicit visualization of the predicted demand values generated by of the blended models).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BREFFNI X BAGGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-7154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-10a, 12p-6p.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
BREFFNI BAGGOT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/BREFFNI BAGGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 LEI, FIG. 2; 302, 201 in FIGS. 3-4; ¶¶ [0038], [0043], and [0046].
2 See, for example US 2019/0130425 A1 to LEI et al.., filed on 10/31/2017, 201 in FIG. 2; 302 in FIGS. 3-4; ¶¶ [0038], [0043], and [0046].
Prosecution Insights