Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims recite a method of generating cost estimates for a vehicle repair and repainting using an image. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claim 1 is directed to a system, i.e., a machine, claim 20 is directed to a CRM, i.e., manufacture and claim 19 is directed to a method, i.e., process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claims 1, 19 and 20 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind therefore, an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 19 and 20, recite:
determining that a similarity between each of the first plurality of ratings is less than a consensus threshold similarity (a human can compare between two values and compare with threshold) as a mental process as an abstract idea);
responsive to determining that a similarity between each of the plurality of ratings is less than a consensus threshold similarity, generating one or more pseudo-labels associated with the subjective attribute, wherein the one or more pseudo-labels comprise additional description of the subjective attribute (human can generate additional description of the subjective attribute) as a mental process as an abstract idea); and
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As such, a person could perform compare value of ratings either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by one or more hardware processors (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with a simple tool such as a pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1- 20 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites:
one or more processors;
and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations (instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
claims 1, 19 and 20 recite:
transmitting a piece of visual content and a subjective attribute to a first plurality of computing systems respectively associated with a plurality of operators; (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea);
receiving first operator feedback information indicative of a first plurality of ratings from the plurality of operators, wherein each of the plurality of ratings are indicative of a perceived similarity between the piece of visual content and the subjective attribute; (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea);
transmitting the one or more pseudo-labels and the piece of visual content to a second plurality of computing systems respectively associated with a plurality of trained users. (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea).
claims 1, 15 and 17 recite:
one or more machine learned models
the one or more trained machine learning models represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer OR merely uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The “one or more machine learning models” which appears as recited in the claims further stands in to automate a human mental process using a generic machine learning models that has not been improved by the applicant.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
With regard to (2b) the Guidance provided the following examples of limitations that may be enough to qualify as “significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception:
Improvement to another technology or technical field
Improvement to functioning of computer itself and/or applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Adding a specific limitation other that what is well understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application
Meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The Guidance further set forth limitations that were found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement abstract ideas on a computer
Simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, e.g. a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic
Computer to perform generic computer functions that are well -understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1- 20 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The above identified additional computer components, using instructions to apply the judicial exception, are merely generic computer components that are well-known, routine, and conventional as is evidenced by Bancorp Services v. Sun Life (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014).
claims 1, 19 and 20 recite:
transmitting a piece of visual content and a subjective attribute to a first plurality of computing systems respectively associated with a plurality of operators; (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea);
receiving first operator feedback information indicative of a first plurality of ratings from the plurality of operators, wherein each of the plurality of ratings are indicative of a perceived similarity between the piece of visual content and the subjective attribute; (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea);
transmitting the one or more pseudo-labels and the piece of visual content to a second plurality of computing systems respectively associated with a plurality of trained users. (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea).
the one or more trained machine learning models represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer OR merely uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The “one or more machine learned models” which appears as recited in the claims further stands in to automate a human mental process using a generic machine learning models that has not been improved by the applicant.
The “one or mor machine learned models” is further routine, well- understood and conventional by the virtue of the factual evidence of the record as follows:
Thus, since claims 1, 9 and 20 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claims 1, 19 and 20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 2-17 and the dependent claims are similarly identified as: being directed towards an abstract idea, not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Note:
Closest prior art is Lee (US 2015/0081687).
Lee discloses transmitting a piece of visual content and a subjective attribute to a first plurality of computing systems respectively associated with a plurality of operators (para [0004], two records para [0005], subjective matches between records.; para [0022], A "record" is any concept that can be described with words or data files; para. [0051] “yellow fever”, image ) ;
receiving first operator feedback information indicative of a first plurality of ratings from the plurality of operators, wherein each of the plurality of ratings are indicative of a perceived similarity between the piece of visual content and the subjective attribute (para [0004], users can compare the similarity of any two records, The similarity between two records is assigned a point value by each individual user).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randolph Chu whose telephone number is 571-270-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:30 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached on (571) 272-7778.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. 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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RANDOLPH I CHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667