DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 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 taught in claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 is directed to “mental steps” and “mathematical concepts” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
• generation and improvement of efficiency data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• instructions (i.e., mental steps)
• user profile comprises a representation of information associated with the user, wherein the user profile further comprises occupational data (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• occupational data (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• dynamically converting images of the occupational data into machine-encoded text in real time (i.e., mental steps. Upon seeing an image, words come to mind)
• a feature extraction process configured to reduce a dimensionality of the occupational data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• binarizing the images of the occupational data by converting the images from color or greyscale to black-and-white (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps. “Binarizing” is merely a mathematical thresholding operation.)
• the feature extraction process decomposes a glyph into features comprising edges and line intersections (i.e., mental steps. e.g., the letter “H” can be mentally decomposed into its vertical and horizontal lines.)
• performing a second-pass adaptive recognition using letter shapes recognized with high confidence on a first pass to recognize remaining letters on a second pass (i.e., mental steps. e.g. people recognize letter shapes every day…for instance…these letters on this page.)
• identify one or more tasks associated with the user as a function of the occupational data, wherein the occupational data comprises a listing of a plurality of tasks associated with the user (i.e., mental steps)
• generate an estimated completion time as a function of the identification of the one or more tasks associated with the user using a lookup table that maps input values to output values (i.e., mental steps)
• the lookup table stores previous examples of estimated completion times correlated to the occupational data and replaces a runtime computation with an indexing operation (using the aforesaid “lookup table” is this claimed “indexing operation”) (i.e., mental steps)
• generate efficiency data as a function of the occupational data and the estimated completion time (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• efficiency data is comprised of an error rate of the user (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• error rate of the user is determined by at least a frequency and at least a severity of at least an error (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• generate a plurality of graphical data as a function of the efficiency data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating the plurality of graphical data (i.e., mental steps)
• organizing the efficiency data in a suitable format (i.e., mental steps)
• plotting the efficiency data along a plurality of continuums combined to generate an XY plot, wherein an X-axis continuum is associated with completion times of the user and a Y-axis continuum is associated with error rates of the user (i.e., mental steps)
• identify a plurality of efficiency clusters associated with the efficiency data as a function of the plurality of graphical data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• identify an ideal arrangement of each cluster of the plurality of efficiency clusters as a function of the efficiency data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generate user improvement data as a function of a comparison between the first efficiency cluster and the ideal arrangement (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• improvement data comprises instructions on how to improve the efficiency data (i.e., mental steps)
• generate a notification as a function of the efficiency data and the user improvement data (i.e., mental steps)
• the notification is further generated as a function of an efficiency threshold (i.e., mental steps)
• the efficiency threshold is calculated using the user improvement data (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. An apparatus for the generation and improvement of efficiency data, wherein the apparatus comprises…” Therefore, it is an “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 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 concepts”:
• generation and improvement of efficiency data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• instructions (i.e., mental steps)
• user profile comprises a representation of information associated with the user, wherein the user profile further comprises occupational data (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• occupational data (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• dynamically converting images of the occupational data into machine-encoded text in real time (i.e., mental steps. Upon seeing an image, words come to mind)
• a feature extraction process configured to reduce a dimensionality of the occupational data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• binarizing the images of the occupational data by converting the images from color or greyscale to black-and-white (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps. “Binarizing” is merely a mathematical thresholding operation.)
• the feature extraction process decomposes a glyph into features comprising edges and line intersections (i.e., mental steps. e.g., the letter “H” can be mentally decomposed into its vertical and horizontal lines.)
• performing a second-pass adaptive recognition using letter shapes recognized with high confidence on a first pass to recognize remaining letters on a second pass (i.e., mental steps. e.g. people recognize letter shapes every day…for instance…these letters on this page.)
• identify one or more tasks associated with the user as a function of the occupational data, wherein the occupational data comprises a listing of a plurality of tasks associated with the user (i.e., mental steps)
• generate an estimated completion time as a function of the identification of the one or more tasks associated with the user using a lookup table that maps input values to output values (i.e., mental steps)
• the lookup table stores previous examples of estimated completion times correlated to the occupational data and replaces a runtime computation with an indexing operation (using the aforesaid “lookup table” is this claimed “indexing operation”) (i.e., mental steps)
• generate efficiency data as a function of the occupational data and the estimated completion time (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• efficiency data is comprised of an error rate of the user (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• error rate of the user is determined by at least a frequency and at least a severity of at least an error (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• generate a plurality of graphical data as a function of the efficiency data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating the plurality of graphical data (i.e., mental steps)
• organizing the efficiency data in a suitable format (i.e., mental steps)
• plotting the efficiency data along a plurality of continuums combined to generate an XY plot, wherein an X-axis continuum is associated with completion times of the user and a Y-axis continuum is associated with error rates of the user (i.e., mental steps)
• identify a plurality of efficiency clusters associated with the efficiency data as a function of the plurality of graphical data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• identify an ideal arrangement of each cluster of the plurality of efficiency clusters as a function of the efficiency data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generate user improvement data as a function of a comparison between the first efficiency cluster and the ideal arrangement (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• improvement data comprises instructions on how to improve the efficiency data (i.e., mental steps)
• generate a notification as a function of the efficiency data and the user improvement data (i.e., mental steps)
• the notification is further generated as a function of an efficiency threshold (i.e., mental steps)
• the efficiency threshold is calculated using the user improvement data (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 “processor”/ “pre-processing”
(2) A memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor
(3) A display device
(4) A receiving of a user profile from a user
(5) A push notification on a user device
(6) A display the improvement data using a display device
(7) A graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines
(1) A “processor”/ “pre-processing” 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 “processor”/ “pre-processing” 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 “memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor” 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 “memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(3) A “display device” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
***
Examiners should be aware that the courts often use the terms “technological environment” and “field of use” interchangeably, and thus for purposes of the eligibility analysis examiners should consider these terms interchangeable. Examiners should also keep in mind that this consideration overlaps with other considerations, particularly insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.
This “display device” 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 “receiving of a user profile from a user” 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 of a user profile from a user” 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 “push notification on a user device” 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 “push notification on a user device” 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 “display the improvement data using a display device” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
***
Examiners should be aware that the courts often use the terms “technological environment” and “field of use” interchangeably, and thus for purposes of the eligibility analysis examiners should consider these terms interchangeable. Examiners should also keep in mind that this consideration overlaps with other considerations, particularly insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.
This “display the improvement data using a display device” 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 “graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
***
Examiners should be aware that the courts often use the terms “technological environment” and “field of use” interchangeably, and thus for purposes of the eligibility analysis examiners should consider these terms interchangeable. Examiners should also keep in mind that this consideration overlaps with other considerations, particularly insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.
This “graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processor”/ “pre-processing”
(2) A memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor
(3) A display device
(4) A receving of a user profile from a user
(5) A push notification on a user device
(6) A display the improvement data using a display device
(7) A graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines
(1) A “processor”/ “pre-processing” 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.
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 “memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level. 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…
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 “display device” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Further, since the “display device” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the “display device” to produce a result is not eligible. 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.
Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0102] Computer system 1100 may further include a video display adapter 1152 for communicating a displayable image to a display device, such as display device 1136. Examples of a display device include, but are not limited to, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a cathode ray tube (CRT), a plasma display, a light emitting diode (LED) display, and any combinations thereof. Display adapter 1152 and display device 1136 may be utilized in combination with processor 1104 to provide graphical representations of aspects of the present disclosure. In addition to a display device, computer system 1100 may include one or more other peripheral output devices including, but not limited to, an audio speaker, a printer, and any combinations thereof. Such peripheral output devices may be connected to bus 1112 via a peripheral interface 1156. Examples of a peripheral interface include, but are not limited to, a serial port, a USB connection, a FIREWIRE connection, a parallel connection, and any combinations thereof.
Therefore, simply using the “display device” to produce a result is not eligible.
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 “receiving of a user profile from a user” 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)).
(5) A “push notification on a user device” 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)).
(6) A “display the improvement data using a display device” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Further, since the “display the improvement data using a display device” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the “display the improvement data using a display device” to produce a result is not eligible. 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.
Therefore, simply using the “display the improvement data using a display device” to produce a result is not eligible.
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 “graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Further, since the “graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the “graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines” to produce a result is not eligible. 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.
Therefore, simply using the “graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines” to produce a result is not eligible.
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. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein receiving the user profile from a user comprises receiving the user profile from a web crawler.
Applicant’s Claim 2 merely teaches receiving 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. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein receiving the user profile from a user comprises receiving the user profile from a chatbot.
Applicant’s Claim 3 merely teaches receiving 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 3 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites:
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein identifying the plurality of efficiency clusters comprises projecting each cluster of the plurality of efficiency clusters onto a continuum (i.e., a “vector space”), wherein the continuum is associated with an error rate of the user.
Applicant’s Claim 4 merely teaches the use of a “vector space”. 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 7
Claim 7 recites:
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein generating the improvement data comprises generating the improvement data as a function of a comparison between the first cluster and the ideal arrangement using a fuzzy inference set.
Applicant’s Claim 7 merely teaches the use of a fuzzy inference set (i.e., pure fuzzy numbers). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 7 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites:
8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the memory further instructs the processor to classify the occupational data into one or more efficiency categories.
Applicant’s Claim 8 merely teaches the use of a generic classifier. 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).) Applicant's Specification recites:
[0050] Further referring to FIG. 2, training data may be filtered, sorted, and/or selected using one or more supervised and/or unsupervised machine-learning processes and/or models as described in further detail below; such models may include without limitation a training data classifier 216. Training data classifier 216 may include a "classifier," which as used in this disclosure is a machine- learning model as defined below, such as a data structure representing and/or using a mathematical model, neural net, or program generated by a machine learning algorithm known as a "classification algorithm," as described in further detail below, that sorts inputs into categories or bins of data, outputting the categories or bins of data and/or labels associated therewith. A classifier may be configured to output at least a datum that labels or otherwise identifies a set of data that are clustered together, found to be close under a distance metric as described below, or the like. A distance metric may include any norm, such as, without limitation, a Pythagorean norm. Machine-learning module 200 may generate a classifier using a classification algorithm, defined as a processes whereby a computing device and/or any module and/or component operating thereon derives a classifier from training data 204. Classification may be performed using, without limitation, linear classifiers such as without limitation logistic regression and/or naive Bayes classifiers, nearest neighbor classifiers such as k-nearest neighbors classifiers, support vector machines, least squares support vector machines, fisher's linear discriminant, quadratic classifiers, decision trees, boosted trees, random forest classifiers, learning vector quantization, and/or neural network-based classifiers. As a non-limiting example, training data classifier 216 may classify elements of training data (i.e., efficiency training data), for instance, occupational data to a plurality of tasks and sub-tasks as described above in this disclosure. By classifying training data, machine-leaning module 200 may build models specific to each category (i.e., sub-population) which allow for a more detailed analysis of each group's behavior, leading to a better fit of machine-learning model to classified data. Additionally, or alternatively, impact of noise and/or outliers may be reduced by classifying training data; for instance, and without limitation, each sub-population may have its own trends and/or patterns that may be better captured when they are analyzed separately by more than one machine-learning models.
Claim 8 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites:
9. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein classifying the occupational data into the one or more efficiency categories comprises classifying the occupational data using an efficiency machine learning model.
Applicant’s Claim 9 merely teaches the use of a generic classifier. 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).) Applicant's Specification recites:
[0050] Further referring to FIG. 2, training data may be filtered, sorted, and/or selected using one or more supervised and/or unsupervised machine-learning processes and/or models as described in further detail below; such models may include without limitation a training data classifier 216. Training data classifier 216 may include a "classifier," which as used in this disclosure is a machine- learning model as defined below, such as a data structure representing and/or using a mathematical model, neural net, or program generated by a machine learning algorithm known as a "classification algorithm," as described in further detail below, that sorts inputs into categories or bins of data, outputting the categories or bins of data and/or labels associated therewith. A classifier may be configured to output at least a datum that labels or otherwise identifies a set of data that are clustered together, found to be close under a distance metric as described below, or the like. A distance metric may include any norm, such as, without limitation, a Pythagorean norm. Machine-learning module 200 may generate a classifier using a classification algorithm, defined as a processes whereby a computing device and/or any module and/or component operating thereon derives a classifier from training data 204. Classification may be performed using, without limitation, linear classifiers such as without limitation logistic regression and/or naive Bayes classifiers, nearest neighbor classifiers such as k-nearest neighbors classifiers, support vector machines, least squares support vector machines, fisher's linear discriminant, quadratic classifiers, decision trees, boosted trees, random forest classifiers, learning vector quantization, and/or neural network-based classifiers. As a non-limiting example, training data classifier 216 may classify elements of training data (i.e., efficiency training data), for instance, occupational data to a plurality of tasks and sub-tasks as described above in this disclosure. By classifying training data, machine-leaning module 200 may build models specific to each category (i.e., sub-population) which allow for a more detailed analysis of each group's behavior, leading to a better fit of machine-learning model to classified data. Additionally, or alternatively, impact of noise and/or outliers may be reduced by classifying training data; for instance, and without limitation, each sub-population may have its own trends and/or patterns that may be better captured when they are analyzed separately by more than one machine-learning models.
Claim 9 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “11. A method for the generation and improvement of efficiency data, wherein the method comprises…” 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 11 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 11 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 concepts”:
• generation and improvement of efficiency data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• instructions (i.e., mental steps)
• user profile comprises a representation of information associated with the user, wherein the user profile further comprises occupational data (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• occupational data (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• dynamically converting images of the occupational data into machine-encoded text in real time (i.e., mental steps. Upon seeing an image, words come to mind)
• a feature extraction process configured to reduce a dimensionality of the occupational data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• binarizing the images of the occupational data by converting the images from color or greyscale to black-and-white (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps. “Binarizing” is merely a mathematical thresholding operation.)
• the feature extraction process decomposes a glyph into features comprising edges and line intersections (i.e., mental steps. e.g., the letter “H” can be mentally decomposed into its vertical and horizontal lines.)
• performing a second-pass adaptive recognition using letter shapes recognized with high confidence on a first pass to recognize remaining letters on a second pass (i.e., mental steps. e.g. people recognize letter shapes every day…for instance…these letters on this page.)
• identify one or more tasks associated with the user as a function of the occupational data, wherein the occupational data comprises a listing of a plurality of tasks associated with the user (i.e., mental steps)
• generate an estimated completion time as a function of the identification of the one or more tasks associated with the user using a lookup table that maps input values to output values (i.e., mental steps)
• the lookup table stores previous examples of estimated completion times correlated to the occupational data and replaces a runtime computation with an indexing operation (using the aforesaid “lookup table” is this claimed “indexing operation”) (i.e., mental steps)
• generate efficiency data as a function of the occupational data and the estimated completion time (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• efficiency data is comprised of an error rate of the user (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• error rate of the user is determined by at least a frequency and at least a severity of at least an error (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• generate a plurality of graphical data as a function of the efficiency data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generating the plurality of graphical data (i.e., mental steps)
• organizing the efficiency data in a suitable format (i.e., mental steps)
• plotting the efficiency data along a plurality of continuums combined to generate an XY plot, wherein an X-axis continuum is associated with completion times of the user and a Y-axis continuum is associated with error rates of the user (i.e., mental steps)
• identify a plurality of efficiency clusters associated with the efficiency data as a function of the plurality of graphical data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• identify an ideal arrangement of each cluster of the plurality of efficiency clusters as a function of the efficiency data (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• generate user improvement data as a function of a comparison between the first efficiency cluster and the ideal arrangement (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• improvement data comprises instructions on how to improve the efficiency data (i.e., mental steps)
• generate a notification as a function of the efficiency data and the user improvement data (i.e., mental steps)
• the notification is further generated as a function of an efficiency threshold (i.e., mental steps)
• the efficiency threshold is calculated using the user improvement data (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 “processor”/ “pre-processing”
(2) A memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor
(3) A display device
(4) A receiving of a user profile from a user
(5) A push notification on a user device
(6) A display the improvement data using a display device
(7) A graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines
(1) A “processor”/ “pre-processing” 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 “processor”/ “pre-processing” 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 “memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor” 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 “memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(3) A “display device” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
***
Examiners should be aware that the courts often use the terms “technological environment” and “field of use” interchangeably, and thus for purposes of the eligibility analysis examiners should consider these terms interchangeable. Examiners should also keep in mind that this consideration overlaps with other considerations, particularly insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.
This “display device” 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 “receiving of a user profile from a user” 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 of a user profile from a user” 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 “push notification on a user device” 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 “push notification on a user device” 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 “display the improvement data using a display device” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
***
Examiners should be aware that the courts often use the terms “technological environment” and “field of use” interchangeably, and thus for purposes of the eligibility analysis examiners should consider these terms interchangeable. Examiners should also keep in mind that this consideration overlaps with other considerations, particularly insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.
This “display the improvement data using a display device” 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 “graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
***
Examiners should be aware that the courts often use the terms “technological environment” and “field of use” interchangeably, and thus for purposes of the eligibility analysis examiners should consider these terms interchangeable. Examiners should also keep in mind that this consideration overlaps with other considerations, particularly insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.
This “graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processor”/ “pre-processing”
(2) A memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor
(3) A display device
(4) A receving of a user profile from a user
(5) A push notification on a user device
(6) A display the improvement data using a display device
(7) A graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines
(1) A “processor”/ “pre-processing” 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.
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 “memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level. 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…
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 “display device” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Further, since the “display device” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the “display device” to produce a result is not eligible. 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.
Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0102] Computer system 1100 may further include a video display adapter 1152 for communicating a displayable image to a display device, such as display device 1136. Examples of a display device include, but are not limited to, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a cathode ray tube (CRT), a plasma display, a light emitting diode (LED) display, and any combinations thereof. Display adapter 1152 and display device 1136 may be utilized in combination with processor 1104 to provide graphical representations of aspects of the present disclosure. In addition to a display device, computer system 1100 may include one or more other peripheral output devices including, but not limited to, an audio speaker, a printer, and any combinations thereof. Such peripheral output devices may be connected to bus 1112 via a peripheral interface 1156. Examples of a peripheral interface include, but are not limited to, a serial port, a USB connection, a FIREWIRE connection, a parallel connection, and any combinations thereof.
Therefore, simply using the “display device” to produce a result is not eligible.
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 “receiving of a user profile from a user” 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)).
(5) A “push notification on a user device” 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)).
(6) A “display the improvement data using a display device” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Further, since the “display the improvement data using a display device” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the “display the improvement data using a display device” to produce a result is not eligible. 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.
Therefore, simply using the “display the improvement data using a display device” to produce a result is not eligible.
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 “graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Further, since the “graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the “graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines” to produce a result is not eligible. 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.
Therefore, simply using the “graphical user interface including a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines” to produce a result is not eligible.
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 11 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites:
12. The method of claim 11, wherein receiving the user profile from a user comprises receiving the user profile from a web crawler.
Applicant’s Claim 12 merely teaches receiving 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 12 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites:
13. The method of claim 11, wherein receiving the user profile from a user comprises receiving the user profile from a chatbot.
Applicant’s Claim 13 merely teaches receiving 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 13 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites:
14. The method of claim 11, wherein identifying the plurality of efficiency clusters comprises projecting each cluster of the plurality of efficiency clusters onto a continuum (i.e., a “vector space”), wherein the continuum is associated with an error rate of the user.
Applicant’s Claim 14 merely teaches the use of a “vector space”. 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 17
Claim 17 recites:
17. The method of claim 11, wherein the method further comprises generating, using the at least a processor, the improvement data as a function of a comparison between the first cluster and the ideal arrangement using a fuzzy inference set.
Applicant’s Claim 17 merely teaches the use of a fuzzy inference set (i.e., pure fuzzy numbers). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 17 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites:
18. The method of claim 11, wherein the method further comprises classifying, using the at least a processor, the occupational data into one or more efficiency categories.
Applicant’s Claim 18 merely teaches the use of a generic classifier. 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).) Applicant's Specification recites:
[0050] Further referring to FIG. 2, training data may be filtered, sorted, and/or selected using one or more supervised and/or unsupervised machine-learning processes and/or models as described in further detail below; such models may include without limitation a training data classifier 216. Training data classifier 216 may include a "classifier," which as used in this disclosure is a machine- learning model as defined below, such as a data structure representing and/or using a mathematical model, neural net, or program generated by a machine learning algorithm known as a "classification algorithm," as described in further detail below, that sorts inputs into categories or bins of data, outputting the categories or bins of data and/or labels associated therewith. A classifier may be configured to output at least a datum that labels or otherwise identifies a set of data that are clustered together, found to be close under a distance metric as described below, or the like. A distance metric may include any norm, such as, without limitation, a Pythagorean norm. Machine-learning module 200 may generate a classifier using a classification algorithm, defined as a processes whereby a computing device and/or any module and/or component operating thereon derives a classifier from training data 204. Classification may be performed using, without limitation, linear classifiers such as without limitation logistic regression and/or naive Bayes classifiers, nearest neighbor classifiers such as k-nearest neighbors classifiers, support vector machines, least squares support vector machines, fisher's linear discriminant, quadratic classifiers, decision trees, boosted trees, random forest classifiers, learning vector quantization, and/or neural network-based classifiers. As a non-limiting example, training data classifier 216 may classify elements of training data (i.e., efficiency training data), for instance, occupational data to a plurality of tasks and sub-tasks as described above in this disclosure. By classifying training data, machine-leaning module 200 may build models specific to each category (i.e., sub-population) which allow for a more detailed analysis of each group's behavior, leading to a better fit of machine-learning model to classified data. Additionally, or alternatively, impact of noise and/or outliers may be reduced by classifying training data; for instance, and without limitation, each sub-population may have its own trends and/or patterns that may be better captured when they are analyzed separately by more than one machine-learning models.
Claim 18 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites:
19. The method of claim 18, wherein classifying, using the at least a processor, the occupational data into the one or more efficiency categories comprises classifying the occupational data using an efficiency machine learning model.
Applicant’s Claim 19 merely teaches the use of a generic classifier. 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).) Applicant's Specification recites:
[0050] Further referring to FIG. 2, training data may be filtered, sorted, and/or selected using one or more supervised and/or unsupervised machine-learning processes and/or models as described in further detail below; such models may include without limitation a training data classifier 216. Training data classifier 216 may include a "classifier," which as used in this disclosure is a machine- learning model as defined below, such as a data structure representing and/or using a mathematical model, neural net, or program generated by a machine learning algorithm known as a "classification algorithm," as described in further detail below, that sorts inputs into categories or bins of data, outputting the categories or bins of data and/or labels associated therewith. A classifier may be configured to output at least a datum that labels or otherwise identifies a set of data that are clustered together, found to be close under a distance metric as described below, or the like. A distance metric may include any norm, such as, without limitation, a Pythagorean norm. Machine-learning module 200 may generate a classifier using a classification algorithm, defined as a processes whereby a computing device and/or any module and/or component operating thereon derives a classifier from training data 204. Classification may be performed using, without limitation, linear classifiers such as without limitation logistic regression and/or naive Bayes classifiers, nearest neighbor classifiers such as k-nearest neighbors classifiers, support vector machines, least squares support vector machines, fisher's linear discriminant, quadratic classifiers, decision trees, boosted trees, random forest classifiers, learning vector quantization, and/or neural network-based classifiers. As a non-limiting example, training data classifier 216 may classify elements of training data (i.e., efficiency training data), for instance, occupational data to a plurality of tasks and sub-tasks as described above in this disclosure. By classifying training data, machine-leaning module 200 may build models specific to each category (i.e., sub-population) which allow for a more detailed analysis of each group's behavior, leading to a better fit of machine-learning model to classified data. Additionally, or alternatively, impact of noise and/or outliers may be reduced by classifying training data; for instance, and without limitation, each sub-population may have its own trends and/or patterns that may be better captured when they are analyzed separately by more than one machine-learning models.
Claim 19 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 MAY 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Argument 1
Applicant asserts that claim 1 does not recite a mental process because amendments specifically added concrete image-processing, optical character recognition (OCR), data- structure, plotting, and interface operations that are not abstract in the sense addressed by the mental-process guidance. Claim 1 now requires binarizing occupational-data images by converting them from color or greyscale to black-and-white to separate text from background, decomposing glyphs into edge and line-intersection features as part of dimensionality-reducing feature extraction, and performing second-pass adaptive recognition using letter shapes recognized with high confidence on a first pass to recognize remaining letters on a second pass. It also now requires identifying tasks from the occupational data, generating estimated completion times using a lookup table that maps input values to output values and replaces runtime computation with an indexing operation, and then generating efficiency data from the occupational data and estimated completion time. Those added limitations are directed to specific OCR and indexed-computer processing operations on image data and machine-encoded text, not to mere human observation, judgment, or evaluation.
There are mental steps in the argument Applicant presents. For instance:
1) “identifying tasks from the occupational data” is a process easily performed in the mind.
2) “decomposing glyphs” is also performed in the mind. For instance, the letter “H” can be mentally decomposed into its vertical and horizontal lines, just as is done in the art.
There are more in the rejection above, but these two are enough to show that Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 2
The amendments also added concrete downstream processing that further ties the claim to specific computer implementation rather than abstraction at a high level. Claim 1 now requires organizing the efficiency data in a suitable format, plotting it along multiple continuums combined to generate an XY plot with an X-axis associated with completion times and a Y-axis associated with error rates, identifying efficiency clusters from that plotted data, identifying an ideal arrangement that represents a performance benchmark and is smaller in size than the first efficiency cluster to represent more consistent efficiency data, generating improvement data from that comparison, generating a push notification on a user device when efficiency data falls below the efficiency threshold, and presenting a graphical user interface with a graphical representation of the efficiency data and trendlines showing improvement over time. Framed that way, the amended claim is not just claiming the idea of evaluating efficiency; it recites a specific OCR-to- lookup-table-to-XY-plot-to-GUI processing sequence with particular computer operations and outputs.
Accordingly, the amended limitations recite specific computer-implemented image processing, indexed data retrieval, plotted data generation, threshold-based device notification, and GUI rendering operations that are not abstract mental steps, but instead define a particular technological implementation for processing occupational data and generating efficiency outputs.
Only two of the steps mentioned by Applicant is not a mental step: 1) the “push notification to the user device, and 2) the display in a GUI. Both are generic and add nothing to the abstract ideas in the claim. This is addressed in more detail in the rejection above.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 3
Applicant asserts Claim 1 does not recite mathematical concepts because, as amended, it does not set forth any mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or mathematical calculation in the claim language itself. The claim does not name or require any specific mathematical training algorithm of the kind the USPTO identified in Example 47, such as backpropagation or gradient descent, and it likewise does not recite any formula for calculating the error rate, the efficiency threshold, the cluster relationship, or the plotted output. Instead, the added limitations are framed as concrete processing operations: binarizing images to separate text from background, decomposing glyphs into edge and line-intersection features, performing second- pass adaptive OCR recognition, identifying tasks, using a lookup table that replaces runtime computation with an indexing operation, plotting data in an XY plot, and generating a GUI output and push notification. That distinction matters as a claim does not recite a mathematical concept if it merely involves or is based on mathematics, and Example 39 was cited by the Office as illustrating claim language that may involve mathematical concepts without reciting them, unlike Example 47, which recited specific mathematical calculations by name.
That same point applies to the particular amended limitations here. The lookup-table clause is recited as a data-structure retrieval mechanism, not as a formula; the XY-plot clause recites organizing and plotting data along continuums, not solving an equation; and the error- rate, threshold, benchmark, and trendline language identifies characteristics of processed data and displayed outputs, but does not itself recite any mathematical expression or calculation steps. In other words, the claim may use data that has quantitative content, but it does not "set forth or describe" mathematics in the manner required for the mathematical-concepts grouping.
Accordingly, amended claim 1 may involve quantitative data and computer processing, but it does not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or named mathematical calculation, and therefore does not recite a mathematical concept.
In the rejection, only one of applicant’s cited limitations is pointed out as being mathematical (i.e., the “binarization” which is a mathematical thresholding of matrix image data. Above the threshold, the datum is set to a number that denotes “white” and below the threshold, the datum is set to a number that denotes “black.” The others are either mental steps or additional elements that are addressed in the rejection above.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 4
Applicant respectfully asserts that, as amended, claim 1 is integrated into a practical application and is directed to a specific technological implementation, not to a disembodied or results-oriented idea. Here, claim 1 recites the specific technological process for converting image-based occupational records into structured, benchmarked, device-presented efficiency outputs. The improvement is not merely "analyzing efficiency" on a generic computer. Rather, the amended claim defines a concrete OCR-driven processing workflow that transforms occupational-data images into machine-encoded text, uses indexed computer retrieval to generate task-time data, and then generates structured graphical and interface outputs from that processed data. That is the type of specific means-and-methods claim language the MPEP and cases such as McRO and Enfish treat as relevant to practical application, because the claim applies any alleged exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit rather than merely claiming the desired result.
More specifically, the amendments added concrete upstream technical operations that tie the claim to a particular machine-implemented process. Claim 1 now requires binarizing occupational-data images from color or greyscale to black-and-white to separate text from background, decomposing glyphs into edge and line-intersection features as part of dimensionality-reducing feature extraction, and performing second-pass adaptive recognition using high-confidence letter shapes from a first pass to recognize remaining letters on a second pass. The claim then uses the OCR output to identify tasks and generate estimated completion times through a lookup table that maps input values to output values and replaces runtime computation with an indexing operation. Those limitations reflect a particular technical implementation for processing image records and producing task-time data, not simply the idea of reviewing information and making a judgment about it.
Again, each of these amended limitations is addressed in the rejection above, and in some of the responses to arguments above.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 5
The amendments also added concrete downstream technical operations that further integrate any alleged exception into a practical application. Claim 1 now requires organizing efficiency data in a suitable format, plotting it along multiple continuums combined to generate an XY plot with continuums tied to completion time and error rate, identifying efficiency clusters from that plotted data, identifying an ideal arrangement that serves as a performance benchmark and is smaller in size to represent more consistent efficiency data, and then using that output to generate improvement data, a push notification on a user device when efficiency data falls below an efficiency threshold, and a graphical user interface with graphical representations and trendlines showing improvement over time. Considered as a whole, these limitations confine the claim to a defined OCR-to-lookup-table-to-XY-plot-to-GUI implementation, and the clear improvement recited by the amendments is a concrete technological process for processing occupational-data images into benchmarked, visualized, and device-delivered efficiency outputs.
Accordingly, amended claim 1 applies any alleged judicial exception through a specific OCR-based image-processing, indexed lookup-table, plotted benchmarking, notification, and GUI-rendering workflow that imposes meaningful technological limits on the claim. At a minimum, those amended limitations integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a concrete technological process for transforming occupational-data images into benchmarked, visualized, and device-delivered efficiency outputs.
These amended limitations are addressed in the rejection above and some of the arguments above. For instance, the use of a lookup table is easily performed in the mind. Creating an XY plot is easily performed in the mind. There are no additional elements or practical applications that properly add anything significantly more to those abstract ideas.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 6
Similar to BASCOM, Applicant respectfully asserts that amended claim 1, considered as a whole, recites additional elements that, in their ordered combination, amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. Claim 1 is not limited to receiving occupational data, identifying patterns, and generating improvement information in the abstract. Rather, claim 1 requires a specific, non-generic computer-implemented arrangement in which occupational-data images are binarized and subjected to glyph-based feature extraction and second-pass adaptive OCR recognition, tasks are then identified from the resulting machine-encoded text, estimated completion times are generated through a lookup table that maps input values to output values and replaces runtime computation with an indexing operation, efficiency data is organized and plotted along multiple continuums to generate an XY plot, efficiency clusters and a performance- benchmark ideal arrangement are identified from that plotted data, and that processed output is then used to generate improvement data, a push notification on a user device when efficiency data falls below an efficiency threshold, and a graphical user interface with graphical representations and trendlines showing improvement over time. In other words, even if individual components such as a processor, memory, lookup table, notification, or GUI are viewed in isolation as conventional, the claim recites a non-conventional and non-generic ordered combination that transforms image-based occupational records into benchmarked, plotted, threshold-triggered, and device-presented efficiency outputs, thereby imposing a meaningful limit on any alleged exception and providing an inventive concept under Step 2B
As such, Applicant submits that claim 1 as amended is allowable under 35 U.S.C. §101, at least for the reasons stated above.
The combination of processors, memory, GUIs, and notifications sent through this combination are ubiquitous and generic. Adding a lookup table for looking up data is nearly as generic.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 7
Claim 11 recites, substantially, the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, Applicant submits that the rejection to claim 11 has been overcome for the same reasons as to claim 1. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection.
Similar arguments for similar claims are similarly unpersuasive.
Argument 8
Claims 10 and 20 are canceled rendering the rejections moot.
Cancellations are noted.
Argument 9
Each of claims 2-4, 7-9, 12- 14, and 17-19 depends, directly or indirectly, on claim 1 or 11 and thus each recites all of the same elements as claim 1 or claim 11. Applicant, therefore, submits that claims 2-4, 7-9, 12-14, and 17-19 overcome these rejections for at least the same reasons as discussed above with reference to claims 1 and 11.
Applicant's arguments were unpersuasive. There is no eligible matter that may be incorporated by reference to the dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
27 JUN 2026
Prosecution Insights