The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9 March 2026 has been entered.
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-17, 19, 21-28 are pending.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8, 10, 18, 20 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-17, 19, 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-17, 19, 21-28.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-17, 19, 21-28 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 19, 21-28,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1 / 19, the claim recites a process / machine, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: Claim 1 / 19, in part, recites
(a)“ determining, from observation samples of a plurality of factors, a first causal structure indicating a first causal relationship among the plurality of factors, each observation sample including a set of observation values of the plurality of factors” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computing elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “determining”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing the values of factors within a sample set to determine if there are any cause-effect relationship between them and creating a representation describing the relationship, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(b) “in response to …, executing actions associated with the at least one user input based on the first causal structure…” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computing elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “executing”, in the limitation citied above encompasses processing the cause-effect structure based on observed data & human, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(c) “in response to…, executing second actions associated with the at least one second user input based on the first causal structure, …” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computing elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “executing”, in the limitation citied above encompasses processing the cause-effect structure based on observed data & human, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(d) “wherein executing the actions further comprise: based on the at least one user input comprising the edit operation: determining, from the edit operation, information for optimizing the first causal structure …” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computing elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “determining”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing the input of the user as to how the structure could be modified and making a determination as to how the structure could be improved, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(e) “… determining, based on the information and the observation samples of the plurality of factors, a second causal structure indicating a second causal relationship among the plurality of factors, the second causal structure being different from the first causal structure…”(mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computing elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “determining”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing the information and the factors in the sample set to determine new cause-effect relationships and making a new representation of those newly identified relationships, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(f) “… based on the at least one second user input comprising the first request: determining, from the first request, the target factor and the first number of key factors; determining, from the plurality of factors, at least one factor affecting the target factor based on the first causal structure; estimating respective causal effects of the at least one factor on the target factor based on the observation samples and the first causal structure; ranking the at least one factor based on the respective causal effects; and selecting, from the at least one factor, the first number of key factors based on the ranking …” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computing elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “determining”, “executing”, “estimating”, “ranking”, “selecting”, “generating”, in the limitation citied above encompasses observing / identifying / processing / evaluating observed data & human input to generate cause-effect structure, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(g) “… based on the at least one second user input comprising the second request: determining, from the second request, the target factor and the expected value of the target factor; and generating, based on the first causal structure and the expected value of the target factor, a configuring strategy for configuring the at least one factor from the plurality of factors, the configuring strategy indicating values of the at least one factor such that a difference between a predicted value of the target factor predicted based on the values of the at least one factor and the expected value of the target factor is below a threshold…” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computing elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “determining”, “executing”, “estimating”, “ranking”, “selecting”, “generating”, in the limitation citied above encompasses observing / identifying / processing / evaluating observed data & human input to generate cause-effect structure, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(h) “… based on the at least one second user input comprising the third request: determining the target factor from the third request; determining, from the plurality of factors, the at least one factor affecting the target factor based on the first causal structure; and generating a sub-structure of the first causal structure based on the target factor and the at least one factor” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computing elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “determining”, “executing”, “estimating”, “ranking”, “selecting”, “generating”, in the limitation citied above encompasses observing / identifying / processing / evaluating observed data & human input to generate cause-effect structure, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: (a) generic computer elements (like “computer implemented …”, “processing unit”, “memory coupled to the processing unit and storing instructions thereon, the instructions, when executed by the processing unit, performing actions …”) which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “presenting the first causal structure to a user, the first causal structure is presented as a causal graph comprising a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of factors and at least one edge connecting the plurality of nodes, the at least one edge indicates the first causal relationship among the plurality of factors”, “… receiving at least one user input about the first causal structure from the user …the at least one user input comprises one of an edit operation, the edit operation being performed on the first causal structure, and the edit operation comprises adding one or more labels to the causal graph, so as to indicate prior knowledge about causality among the plurality of nodes”, “…receiving at least one second user input about the first causal structure from the user … the at least one second user input comprises one of a first request, a second request, and a third request, the first request being to retrieve a first number of key factors affecting a target factor from the plurality of factors, the second request being to obtain an expected value strategy that enables the target factor from the plurality of factors to reach an expected value, and the third request being to initiate an evaluation of an affecting strategy for affecting the target factor from the plurality of factors “, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post solution data (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the use of one or more generic hardware processors is merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “presenting the first causal structure to a user, the first causal structure is presented as a causal graph comprising a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of factors and at least one edge connecting the plurality of nodes, the at least one edge indicates the first causal relationship among the plurality of factors”, is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional element of “… receiving at least one user input about the first causal structure from the user …”, “…receiving at least one second user input about the first causal structure from the user … “ is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 28 / 21-27 are dependent on claim 1 / 19 and include all the limitations of claim 1 / 19. Therefore, claims 4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 28 / 21-27 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 4, the claim recites further limitation “…wherein the edit operation further comprises one of the following: adding, to the causal graph, an edge for connecting two nodes of the plurality of nodes, so as to indicate direct causality between the two nodes; removing, from the causal graph, the edge connecting two of the plurality of nodes, so as to indicate no direct causality between the two nodes; and redirecting the edge connecting two of the plurality of nodes, so as to redirect causality between the two nodes”, which is further steps of data processing to generate cause-effect structure, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible
With regards to claim 6, the claim recites additional element of “…presenting the first number of factors to the user”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “presenting the first number of factors to the user”, is insignificant extra solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 7, the claim recites additional element of “…presenting causal effects of the first number of key factors to the user”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “presenting causal effects of the first number of key factors to the user”, is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites additional element of “…presenting any of the strategy and the predicted value of the target factor to the user”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “presenting any of the strategy and the predicted value of the target factor to the user”, is insignificant extra solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 11, the claim recites additional element of “…presenting the sub-structure of the first causal structure to the user, so as to enable the user to input a strategy about the target factor based on the sub-structure for evaluation”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data input and/or post-solution data output. Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “presenting the sub-structure of the first causal structure to the user, so as to enable the user to input a strategy about the target factor based on the sub-structure for evaluation”, is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 12, the claim recites further limitation “… wherein executing the actions further comprises: predicting, based on the first causal structure and the values of the at least one factor, a value of the target factor”, which is further steps of data processing to generate cause-effect structure, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
the claim recites additional element of “…wherein the at least one user input further comprises a sub-structure strategy inputted by the user based on the sub-structure for evaluation, the sub-structure strategy indicates the values of the at least one factor”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering. Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “wherein the at least one user input further comprises a sub-structure strategy inputted by the user based on the sub-structure for evaluation, the sub-structure strategy indicates the values of the at least one factor”, is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible
With regards to claim 13, the claim recites additional element of “…presenting the predicted value of the target factor to the user”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “presenting the predicted value of the target factor to the user”, is insignificant extra solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 21, the claim recites further limitation “…wherein the edit operation further comprises one of the following: adding, to a causal graph, an edge for connecting two nodes of the plurality of nodes, so as to indicate direct causality between the two nodes; removing, from the causal graph, the edge connecting two of the plurality of nodes, so as to indicate no direct causality between the two nodes; and redirecting the edge connecting two of the plurality of nodes, so as to redirect causality between the two nodes”, which is further steps of data processing to generate cause-effect structure, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible
With regards to claim 22, the claim recites additional element of “…presenting first number of key factors to the user”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “presenting first number of key factors to the user”, is insignificant extra solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 23, the claim recites additional element of “…presenting causal effects of the first number of key factors to the user”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “presenting causal effects of the first number of key factors to the user”, is insignificant extra solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 24, the claim recites additional element of “…presenting any of a strategy and a predicted value of the target factor to the user”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “presenting any of a strategy and a predicted value of the target factor to the user”, is insignificant extra solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 25, the claim recites additional element of “… presenting a sub-structure of the first causal structure to the user, so as to enable the user to input a strategy about a target factor based on the sub-structure for evaluation”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “presenting a sub-structure of the first causal structure to the user, so as to enable the user to input a strategy about a target factor based on the sub-structure for evaluation”, is insignificant extra solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 26, the claim recites further limitation “…wherein executing the actions further comprises: predicting, based on the first causal structure and the values of the at least one factor, a value of the target factor”, which is further steps of data processing to generate cause-effect structure, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
the claim recites additional element of “… wherein the at least one user input further comprises a sub-structure strategy inputted by the user based on the sub-structure for evaluation, the sub-structure strategy indicates the values of the at least one factor”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “wherein the at least one user input further comprises a sub-structure strategy inputted by the user based on the sub-structure for evaluation, the sub-structure strategy indicates the values of the at least one factor”, is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible
With regards to claim 27, the claim recites further limitation “… presenting a predicted value of the target factor to the user”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “presenting a predicted value of the target factor to the user”, is insignificant extra solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 28, the claim recites additional element of “… wherein the at least one second user input comprises a plurality of the first request, the second request, and the third request”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “… wherein the at least one second user input comprises a plurality of the first request, the second request, and the third request”, is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible
Regarding claims 14-17,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 14, the claim recites a process, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: Claim 14, in part, recites
(a)“… in response to a target factor being identified in the plurality of factors, determining, from the plurality of factors, at least one factor affecting the target factor based on the causal structure …” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computing elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “determining”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing to determine co-related factors based on some causal structure morel, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(b) “estimating, for each of the at least one factor, an overall causal effect of the factor on the target factor based on the observation samples and the causal structure, the overall causal effect of the factor on the target factor is estimated as a positive value or a negative value; and ranking the at least one factor based on respective overall causal effects of the at least one factor on the target factor …” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computing elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “estimating”, “ranking”, in the limitation citied above encompasses evaluating and ranking factors in causal structure, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(c) “wherein ranking the at least one factor comprises: determining respective absolute values of the overall causal effects of the at least one factor on the target factor; and ranking the at least one factor based on the determined absolute values” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computing elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “determining”, “ranking”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing to determine & rank causal effect rating, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: (a) generic computer elements (like “computer-implemented …”), which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “obtaining observation samples of a plurality of factors and a causal structure…”, “receiving at least one user input comprising an edit operation performed on the causal structure, wherein the causal structure is presented as a causal graph comprising a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of factors and at least one edge connecting the plurality of nodes, the at least one edge indicates the causal relationship among the plurality of factors, and wherein the edit operation comprises adding one or more labels to the causal graph, so as to indicate prior knowledge about causality among the plurality of nodes”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post solution data (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer element merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “obtaining observation samples of a plurality of factors and a causal structure…”, “receiving at least one user input comprising an edit operation performed on the causal structure” is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). The additional element of “wherein the causal structure is presented as a causal graph comprising a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of factors and at least one edge connecting the plurality of nodes, the at least one edge indicates the causal relationship among the plurality of factors, and wherein the edit operation comprises adding one or more labels to the causal graph, so as to indicate prior knowledge about causality among the plurality of nodes” is insignificant extra solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 15-17 are dependent on claim 14 and include all the limitations of claim 14. Therefore, claims 15-17 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 15, the claim recites further limitation “wherein obtaining the causal structure comprises: determining the causal structure from the observation samples”, which is further steps of data processing to generate cause-effect structure, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 16, the claim recites further limitation “wherein estimating the overall causal effect of the factor on the target factor comprises: estimating the overall causal effect of the factor on the target factor based on a causal effect estimation algorithm”, which is further steps of data processing to generate cause-effect structure, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 17, the claim recites further limitation “wherein estimating the overall causal effect of the factor on the target factor comprises: determining, from the causal structure, one or more causal paths between the factor and the target factor; estimating, for each of the one or more causal paths, a causal effect of the factor on the target factor; and determining a sum of causal effects for the one or more causal paths as the overall causal effect of the factor on the target factor”, which is further steps of data processing to generate cause-effect structure, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 9 March 2026 has been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejections,
1)Applicant argued that (p.12) ….
PNG
media_image1.png
457
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner replies: As stated in last office action, the invention claimed is directed to processing data to generate causal analysis models which can be performed by human mind on the paper, hence recites abstract idea. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity or merely using computer to implement the abstract idea. The 101 rejections are maintained. See 101 rejection section for detailed analysis.
2) Applicant argued that (p.13-18) ….
PNG
media_image2.png
192
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image3.png
154
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
82
745
media_image4.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image5.png
77
744
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner replies: The claim includes limitations that can be performed by human mind, e.g., the actions of “determining”, “estimating”, “ranking”, “selecting” encompasses observing / identifying / processing / evaluating observed data & human input to generate cause-effect structure, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human (see 101 rejection section for detailed analysis). Applicant did not provide persuasive argument that non of those actions can be performed by human. Hence the claim recites an abstract idea. The 101 rejections are maintained.
3) Applicant argued that (p.19-22) ….
PNG
media_image6.png
81
754
media_image6.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image7.png
130
736
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
72
729
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner replies: As stated earlier, human can perform causal analysis and build graphical model to capture the causal relationship among entities, hence this is directed to a mental process. Improving an abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The 101 rejection is maintained.
3) Applicant argued that (p.22-27) ….
PNG
media_image9.png
81
736
media_image9.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image10.png
256
778
media_image10.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image11.png
120
767
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examiner replies: Unlike the court cases cited in Applicant’s argument, the instant application as claimed does not provide any improvement on computer technology or any technology area. As stated before, causal analysis as claimed is an abstract idea, and improving an abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Applicant did not address why any of the elements analyzed in 2B of previous OA is patent eligible. As stated in the 101 rejection sections, those elements are merely data input / output and /or merely application of the abstract idea, and does not provide anything significantly more the abstract idea. The 101 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights