DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Applicant filed Amendments on 04/30/2026. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14-20 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
5. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 12-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “… obtaining, …, a client asset dataset (CAD) and an economic and demographic dataset (EDD), wherein the CAD comprises a plurality of assets; analyzing, …, the CAD that is received … to generate and associate an identifier for each of the plurality of assets, wherein the identifier comprises location data; associating, …, at least a portion of the EDD with each of the plurality of assets to obtain a combined dataset, wherein each asset in the combined dataset comprises the associated identifier and the associated portion of the EDD; generating, …, a predicted net operating income (NOI) for each asset in the combined dataset, wherein the combined dataset is used as an input …; generating, … an explanation dataset for each asset in the combined dataset, wherein the explanation dataset comprises deviations from a baseline dataset, wherein the baseline dataset is based on an aggregation of training data …; and wherein … to generate the deviations; and generating, …, for at least one of the assets in the combined dataset, the visualization based on the predicted NOI and the explanation dataset, wherein the visualization comprises: a total net impact element illustrating a total difference between the predicted NOI and the baseline dataset; and deviation elements, each illustrating a corresponding one of the deviations, wherein each of the deviations is based on one type from the EDD, wherein the deviation elements are displayed in a stacked order based on a magnitude of the associated deviation, wherein deviation elements associated with a positive number are configured to extend in a first direction … and deviation elements associated with a negative number are configured to extend in a second direction …, opposite the first direction, wherein the deviation elements are displayed in a waterfall manner in which an end point of each of the deviation elements vertically aligns with a start point of a directly subsequent deviation element, and wherein the first and second directions are in a horizontal direction, wherein a magnitude of extension of each deviation element is based on the magnitude of the associated deviation, wherein the visualization further comprises a list view including rows corresponding to assets, and wherein interaction with a row automatically causes a corresponding NOI visualization to be displayed; and automatically displaying, in response to a user interacting with a selected deviation element of the deviation elements, an explanation box within the visualization and proximate to the selected deviation element, wherein the explanation box comprises a name of the one type, an impact of the one type on the predicted NOI, a raw value of the one type from the combined dataset, and a raw value of the one type from the baseline dataset.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities and/or business relations for providing a visualization for a graphical user interface (GUI) of a predicted value of an asset). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “an orchestrator”, “an analyzer”, “an engine”, “a trained model”, “an explainer model”, “Shapley Additive Explanations”, “a first direction along the GUI”, and “a second direction along the GUI, opposite the first direction”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “an orchestrator”, “an analyzer”, “an engine”, “a trained model”, “an explainer model”, “Shapley Additive Explanations”, “a first direction along the GUI”, and “a second direction along the GUI, opposite the first direction” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 6:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 6 recites the at least following limitations of “… providing, to … and based on a user input, a client asset dataset (CAD) wherein the CAD comprises a plurality of assets, and wherein … is configured to: analyze, …, the CAD … to generate and associate an identifier for each of the plurality of assets, wherein the identifier comprises location data; associate, …, at least a portion of an economic and demographic dataset (EDD) with each of the plurality of assets to obtain a combined dataset, wherein each asset in the combined dataset comprises the associated identifier and the associated portion of the EDD; generate, …, a predicted net operating income (NOI) for each asset in the combined dataset, wherein the combined dataset is used as an input …, and wherein the explanation dataset comprises deviations from a baseline dataset, wherein the baseline dataset is based on an aggregation of training data … to generate the deviations; and generate, …, for at least one of the assets in the combined dataset, the visualization based on the predicted NOI and the explanation dataset, wherein the visualization comprises: a total net impact comprising a total difference between the predicted NOI and the baseline dataset; and the deviations, wherein each of the deviations is based on one type from the EDD, wherein deviation elements associated with a positive number are configured to extend in a first direction … and deviation elements associated with a negative number are configured to extend in a second direction …, opposite the first direction, wherein the deviation elements are displayed in a waterfall manner in which an end point of each of the deviation elements vertically aligns with a start point of a directly subsequent deviation element, and wherein the first and second directions are in a horizontal direction; wherein a magnitude of extension of each deviation element is based on the magnitude of the associated deviation, wherein the visualization further comprises a list view including rows corresponding to assets, and wherein interaction with a row automatically causes a corresponding NOI visualization to be displayed; and obtaining, from the infrastructure node, the visualization; displaying the visualization on the GUI on a display; and automatically displaying, in response to a user interacting with a selected deviation element of the deviation elements, an explanation box within the visualization and proximate to the selected deviation element, wherein the explanation box comprises a name of the one type, an impact of the one type on the predicted NOI, a raw value of the one type from the combined dataset, and a raw value of the one type from the baseline dataset.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities and/or business relations for providing a visualization for a graphical user interface (GUI) of a predicted value of an asset). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 6 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “an infrastructure node”, “an analyzer”, “the orchestrator”, “an engine”, “a trained model”, “a display”, “an explainer model”, “Shapley Additive Explanations”, “a first direction along the GUI”, and “a second direction along the GUI, opposite the first direction”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “an infrastructure node”, “an analyzer”, “the orchestrator”, “an engine”, “a trained model”, “a display”, “an explainer model”, “Shapley Additive Explanations”, “a first direction along the GUI”, and “a second direction along the GUI, opposite the first direction” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 12:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 12 recites the at least following limitations of “… generating, …, a predicted net operating income (NOI) for each asset in an asset dataset, wherein the asset dataset is used as an input to the trained model; generating, …, an explanation dataset for each asset in the asset dataset, wherein the explanation dataset comprises a plurality of deviations from a baseline dataset, wherein the baseline dataset is based on an aggregation of training data …, and wherein … to generate the deviations; and generating, by the engine, for at least one of the assets in the asset dataset, the visualization based on the predicted NOI and the explanation dataset, wherein the visualization comprises: a total net impact comprising a total difference between the predicted NOI and the baseline dataset; and the deviations, wherein each of the deviations is based on one type from an economic and demographic dataset (EDD), wherein deviation elements associated with a positive number are configured to extend in a first direction and deviation elements associated with a negative number are configured to extend in a second direction, opposite the first direction, wherein the deviation elements are displayed in a waterfall manner in which an end point of each of the deviation elements vertically aligns with a start point of a directly subsequent deviation element, and wherein the first and second directions are in a horizontal direction, wherein a magnitude of extension of each deviation element is based on the magnitude of the associated deviation, wherein the visualization further comprises a list view including rows corresponding to assets, and wherein interaction with a row automatically causes a corresponding NOI visualization to be displayed; and automatically displaying, in response to a user interacting with a selected deviation element of the deviation elements, an explanation box within the visualization and proximate to the selected deviation element, wherein the explanation box comprises a name of the one type, an impact of the one type on the predicted NOI, a raw value of the one type from the asset dataset, and a raw value of the one type from the baseline dataset.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities and/or business relations for providing a visualization explaining an output of a predicted value of an asset). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 12 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a computer processor”, “an engine”, “a trained model”, “an explainer model”, and “Shapley Additive Explanations”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a computer processor”, “an engine”, “a trained model”, “an explainer model”, and “Shapley Additive Explanations” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 3, 8, and 14: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising: generating, by the engine, a second visualization comprising a list view of at least a portion of the combined dataset, at least a portion of the explanation dataset, and the predicted NOI), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in claims 1, 6, and 12. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the engine amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the engine) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 4 and 9: simply provide further definition to “the predicted NOI” recited in dependent claims 3 and independent claim 6. Simply stating that wherein the predicted NOI comprises a one-year forecast and a five-year forecast do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an interactive element associated with each of the deviation elements, an explanation box) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 11: simply provide further definition to “each asset in the combined dataset” recited in claim 6. Simply stating that wherein each asset in the combined dataset comprises the associated identifier and the associated portion of the EDD do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an interactive element associated with each of the deviation elements, an explanation box) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 15: simply provide further definition to “the method” recited in independent claim 12. Simply stating that wherein the method further comprises: associate an identifier for each of a plurality of assets contained within a client asset dataset to generate the asset dataset, wherein the identifier comprises location data do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an interactive element associated with each of the deviation elements, an explanation box) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 16: simply provide further definition to “the method” recited in independent claim 12. Simply stating that wherein the method further comprises: associating, by an analyzer, at least a portion of an economic and demographic dataset (EDD) with each of a plurality of assets to obtain a combined dataset, wherein the asset dataset is the combined dataset do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an interactive element associated with each of the deviation elements, an explanation box) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 17: simply provide further definition to “each asset in the combined dataset” recited in dependent claim 16. Simply stating that wherein each asset in the combined dataset comprises the associated identifier and the associated portion of the EDD do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an interactive element associated with each of the deviation elements, an explanation box) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 18: simply provide further definition to “the method” recited in independent claim 12. Simply stating that wherein the method further comprises: associating, by an analyzer, at least a portion of an economic and demographic dataset (EDD) with each of a plurality of assets to obtain a combined dataset; and applying, by the analyzer, filter criteria received from a user to the combined dataset to obtain an augmented dataset, wherein the asset dataset is the augmented dataset amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., an analyzer).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an analyzer) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 19: simply provide further definition to “the baseline dataset” recited in independent claim 12. Simply stating that wherein the baseline dataset is generated using a national dataset of assets having a same type as the at least one of the assets do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an interactive element associated with each of the deviation elements, an explanation box) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 20: simply provide further definition to “the baseline dataset” recited in independent claim 12. Simply stating that wherein the baseline dataset is generated using a regional asset dataset having a same type as the at least one of the assets do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an interactive element associated with each of the deviation elements, an explanation box) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
6. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14-20 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks Applicant respectfully asserts that no independent claim explicitly sets forth an abstract idea in such a manner. The MPEP provides, as an example of "describe", the description of the concept if intermediated settlement in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank without including the words intermediated or settlement. Id. Applicant respectfully asserts that there is no such description of an abstract idea present in any independent claim … further, the USPTO has published examples of what does and does not constitute abstract ideas. In one such example, claim 2 of Example 37, published in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guide (2019 PEG), is provided as not reciting a judicial exception. This claim 2 recites: A method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system, the method comprising: receiving, via the GUI, … the claim is necessarily performed by a processor accessing computer memory. Independent claim 1, as amended, requires: (i) the deviation elements are displayed in a waterfall manner in which an end point of each of the deviation elements vertically aligns with a start point of a directly subsequent deviation element, and wherein the first and second directions are in a horizontal direction... (ii) require the use of specific computing components performing tasks that only computing components are capable of performing. Thus, like claim 2 of Example 37, the claims require actions performed by computing components that cannot practically be performed in the human mind … Subsequently, because the claims, as amended, cannot be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, the amended claims fail to recite a mental process (i.e., an abstract idea), and the analysis under the Mayo/Alice Test should end with a conclusion that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter, and the independent claims should be considered patent eligible. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully asserts that no independent claim "recites" any abstract idea, much less the abstract ideas set forth by the Examiner in the Action. Therefore, the analysis of patent subject matter eligibility should end with the conclusion that the independent claims are eligible. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-6).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that unlike claim 2 of Example 37, independent claims 1, 8, 15 at issue recite limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities and/or business relations for providing a visualization for a graphical user interface (GUI) of a predicted value of an asset). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of the claims in the section above.
2. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, assuming arguendo that the independent claims recite a judicial exception, Applicant asserts that any such judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. "If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception [] and thus is eligible []. This concludes the eligibility analysis." See MPEP § 2106. Applicant respectfully asserts that, if the claims actually did explicitly recite a judicial exception (which they do not), they clearly integrate any such judicial exception into a practical application. computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. … This claim is provided as an example of integrating a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, according to the guidance provided by the USPTO, this claim 1 is eligible. Independent claim 1, as amended, requires:(i) the deviation elements are displayed in a waterfall manner in which an end point of each of the deviation elements vertically aligns with a start point of a directly subsequent deviation element, and wherein the first and second directions are in a horizontal direction... which is nearly exactly analogous to the claim 1 of Example 37 which provides the most used icons closest to a start icon. In addition, Applicant submits that, assuming arguendo set (ii) is not considered analogous to claim 2 of Example 37 provided above, then set (ii) is analogous to the patent at issue in Enfish. Like the patent at issue in Enfish, the concepts set (ii) are integrated into a practical application … Applicant respectfully asserts that such actions are clearly a practical application into which the concepts in amended independent claims 1, 6, and 12 are integrated and are not "no more than adding insignificantly extra-solution activity to the judicial exception". As such, the claims are not "directed" to an abstract idea, and the rejection should be withdrawn (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 7-9).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 6, 12 at issue include additional elements of “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “an orchestrator”, “an analyzer”, “an engine”, “a trained model”, “an explainer model”, “Shapley Additive Explanations”, “a first direction along the GUI”, and “a second direction along the GUI, opposite the first direction”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, none of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of the claims in the section above.
3. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that "Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Because this approach considers all claim elements, the Supreme Court has noted that "it is consistent with the general rule that patent claims 'must be considered as a whole."' [citation omitted] Consideration of the elements in combination is particularly important, because even if an additional element does not amount to significantly more on its own, it can still amount to significantly more when considered in combination with the other elements of the claim". MPEP § 2106.The Examiner has failed to consider the additional elements as a whole. See MPEP § 2106(I)(B). As such, Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice Test can be answered with a "yes", and the rejection should be withdrawn. In view of the above, Applicant respectfully asserts that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 9-10).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 6, 12 at issue do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “an orchestrator”, “an analyzer”, “an engine”, “a trained model”, “an explainer model”, “Shapley Additive Explanations”, “a first direction along the GUI”, and “a second direction along the GUI, opposite the first direction” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of the claims in the section above.
7. 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14-20 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurito et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0298805), hereinafter, “Laurito”, in view of Guo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 12,165,228), hereinafter, “Guo”, have been considered and they are persuasive (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 10-13).
Examiner notes that the amended limitations “generating, by the engine and using an explainer model, an explanation dataset for each asset in the combined dataset, wherein the explanation dataset comprises deviations from a baseline dataset, wherein the baseline dataset is based on an aggregation of training data used to train the explainer model, and wherein the explainer model utilizes Shapley Additive Explanations to generate the deviations; and generating, by the engine, for at least one of the assets in the combined dataset, the visualization based on the predicted NOI and the explanation dataset, wherein the visualization comprises: a total net impact element illustrating a total difference between the predicted NOI and the baseline dataset; and deviation elements, each illustrating a corresponding one of the deviations, wherein each of the deviations is based on one type from the EDD, wherein deviation elements associated with a positive number are configured to extend in a first direction along the GUI and deviation elements associated with a negative number are configured to extend in a second direction along the GUI, opposite the first direction, wherein the deviation elements are displayed in a waterfall manner in which an end point of each of the deviation elements vertically aligns with a start point of a directly subsequent deviation element, and wherein the first and second directions are in a horizontal direction, wherein a magnitude of extension of each deviation element is based on the magnitude of the associated deviation, wherein the visualization further comprises a list view including rows corresponding to assets, and wherein interaction with a row automatically causes a corresponding NOI visualization to be displayed; and automatically displaying, in response to a user interacting with a selected deviation element of the deviation elements, an explanation box within the visualization and “proximate to the selected deviation element, wherein the explanation box comprises a name of the one type, an impact of the one type on the predicted NOI, a raw value of the one type from the combined dataset, and a raw value of the one type from the baseline dataset” of amended independent claims 1, 6, and 12 are deemed not to be found in the prior art and updated search. Therefore, the Examiner hereby withdraws the 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections of these independent claims and their respective dependent claims.
Relevant Prior Art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Darden (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0150926) teach systems and methods for automated assessment for remediation and/or redevelopment of brownfield real estate.
Keifer, III (U.S. Patent No. 11,223,873) teach methods and systems for remote streaming of a user-customized user interface.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights