DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/13/2023 are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the IDS, submitted on 01/31/2024, have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising: obtaining, by one or more processing circuits, user activity data pertaining to a plurality of users enrolled in a service provided by a first provider; identifying, by the one or more processing circuits based on information included in the user activity data, a first plurality of accounts for which one or more first users of the plurality of users have with the first provider, and a second plurality of accounts for which one or more second users of the plurality of users have with one or more second providers; generating, by the one or more processing circuits based on information associated with at least one of the first plurality of accounts or the second plurality of accounts, a plurality of datasets corresponding to information associated with at least one of the first provider or the one or more second providers; identifying, by the one or more processing circuits responsive to an evaluation of the plurality of datasets based on predetermined criteria, a first set of accounts of at least one of the first plurality of accounts or the second plurality of accounts that exceed a predetermined threshold, and a second set of accounts of at least one of the first plurality of accounts or the second plurality of accounts within the predetermined threshold; generating, by the one or more processing circuits based on characteristics of the first set of accounts or characteristics of the second set of accounts, a plurality of changes to the predetermined criteria to adjust at least one of a number of accounts included in the first set of accounts or a number of accounts included in the second set of accounts; and generating and presenting, by the one or more processing circuits, a graphical user interface (GUI) including a plurality of elements to indicate the plurality of changes. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claims 11 and 14.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 11 and 14 is a process claim, and claim 14 is a computer program product claim.
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim., Under Step 2A, Prong One, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps recited in Claim 1 include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical process. This can be seen in the claimed process steps of “identifying…a first plurality of accounts for which one or more first users of the plurality of users have with the first provider, and a second plurality of accounts for which one or more second users of the plurality of users have with one or more second providers…” (See, for example, FIGS. 3-5; ¶¶94-99, of the instant specification), “generating…a plurality of datasets corresponding to information associated with at least one of the first provider or the one or more second providers…” (See, for example, FIGS. 3-5; ¶100, of the instant specification), “identifying…a first set of accounts of at least one of the first plurality of accounts or the second plurality of accounts that exceed a predetermined threshold, and a second set of accounts of at least one of the first plurality of accounts or the second plurality of accounts within the predetermined threshold…” (See, for example, FIGS. 3-5; ¶101, of the instant specification), and “generating…a plurality of changes to the predetermined criteria to adjust at least one of a number of accounts included in the first set of accounts or a number of accounts included in the second set of accounts…” (See, for example, FIGS. 3-5; ¶¶102-103, of the instant specification), each of which encompasses mathematical concepts requiring mathematical calculations (“the process of modeling can include using techniques such as machine learning, statistical analysis, and pattern recognition to establish relationships between different data points and predict future outcomes based on those relationships. In some embodiments, modeling can begin with the selection of an appropriate model based on the type of data and the specific predictions that need to be made. For example, linear regression models might be selected by the processing circuits for predicting continuous outcomes such as the amount a user might spend on their credit card, while logistic regression models might be selected for predicting binary outcomes such as whether a user will make a car loan payment on time or not. It should be understood that the term modeling herein encompasses a wide range of techniques and approaches aimed at understanding patterns within data and predicting future outcomes.” described in FIG. 3; ¶71, of the instant specification.) to perform the generating a plurality of changes to predetermined criteria to adjust at least one of a number of accounts included in first set of accounts or a number of accounts included in second set of accounts, and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. For example, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the steps of “creating an orthogonal partial least square (OPLS),” “identifying,” “generating,” “identifying,” and “generating” are performed using one or more training algorithms (modeler(s)).
In the alternative, each of the recited judicial exceptions may also be considered a mental process because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, capable of being performed using a pen and paper. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, upon receipt of the user activity data pertaining to a plurality of users enrolled in a service provided by a first provider, a human user would be capable of identifying a first plurality of accounts for which one or more first users of the plurality of users have with the first provider, and a second plurality of accounts for which one or more second users of the plurality of users have with one or more second providers, generating, a plurality of datasets corresponding to information associated with at least one of the first provider or the one or more second providers, identifying a first set of accounts of at least one of the first plurality of accounts or the second plurality of accounts that exceed a predetermined threshold, and a second set of accounts of at least one of the first plurality of accounts or the second plurality of accounts within the predetermined threshold, and generating a plurality of changes to the predetermined criteria to adjust at least one of a number of accounts included in the first set of accounts or a number of accounts included in the second set of accounts, by pen and paper. While such calculations by pen and paper may be time consuming, they fall in the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping. Noting MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) “MENTAL PROCESSES,” “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). “‘[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, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claims 11 and 14 recite similar abstract ideas.
In claim 1, the steps of: “identifying,” “generating,” “identifying,” and “generating” each fall within the mathematical and/or mental concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The recited process steps are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. Claims 11 and 14 recites similar abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Each of the process steps “identifying,” “generating,” “identifying,” and “generating” are recited as being performed by a computer (“The processing circuit 114 includes a processor 116, a memory 120, a modeler circuit 124, a data control circuit 126, and a content control circuit 128.” FIG. 1; ¶20, of the instant specification). The computer is recited at a high level of generality (“processing circuit/processor”). The computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of collecting data and performing the recited process steps. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recited process steps comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).
Claim 1 additionally recites the step of: “generating and presenting…a graphical user interface (GUI) including a plurality of elements to indicate the plurality of changes” (See, for example, FIG. 1; ¶36, of the instant specification). The recited method steps merely comprises a data processing step and is/are set forth at a highly generic level and which comprises an “insignificant extra-solution” {post-solution} activity(ies). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).
Claim 1 also recites the additional elements (equipment) of “one or more processing circuits” (See, for example, FIG. 1; ¶20, of the instant specification), and data comprising “a user activity data” (See, for example, FIG. 1; ¶32, ¶89, of the instant specification), “a first provider,” “a first plurality of accounts,” “a second plurality of accounts,” “one or more second providers…” (See, for example, FIGS. 1, 3-5; ¶¶89-99, of the instant specification). However, these additional elements merely comprise generic conventional non-specific equipment, and computer hardware and software elements, and data/information, and is/are set forth at a highly generic level and each of which comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claims 11 and 14 recites analogous additional elements.
The recited additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements recited in claim 1, as well as claims 11 and 14, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done once the graphical user interface including a plurality of elements to indicate the plurality of changes is generated and presented.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (Claims 1, 11,14). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 11 and 14, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1, as well as claims 11 and 14, is not patent eligible under 101.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20, provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
NOTE: Currently there are no outstanding prior art rejections under 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC § 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 11,870,795 B1, to Zadeh et al., discloses techniques for identifying attack behavior based on scripting language activity.
U.S. Patent 11,676,126 B1, to Zadeh et al., is directed to a multi-platform service integration which includes a plurality of functionalities that may also be accessed via external applications.
U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0342785 A1, to Mann et al., is directed to an integrated unified filing engine which includes at least one table containing a plurality of items and a plurality of asset designations, and maintains at least one electronic whiteboard containing at least a subset of the plurality of asset designations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P AIELLO whose telephone number is (303) 297-4216. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY P AIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857