Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the acronyms “UNET” used in all independent claims need to be defined the first time it is mentioned in the claims so one skilled in the art would know exactly what it is when reading the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1, 6, 7 and 12 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “predicting life time value (LTV) of a user playing a mobile F2P game.”
The limitations of “acquiring, by a computing system in which a prediction model for predicting LTV of a user, subscription information of a user to be predicted, which is input by the user to be predicted or obtainable from a terminal of the user to be predicted at a point of time when the user to be predicted subscribes to a service providing the mobile F2P game, action information, which is the number of times the user to be predicted performed various actions within the mobile F2P game over a predetermined period of time, and status information, which is various numerical information about the user to be predicted managed within the mobile F2P game; and inputting, to the prediction model, data on the subscription information of the user to be predicted, latest data on the status information of the user to be predicted, time-series data on the status information of the user to be predicted, and time-series data on the action information of the user to be predicted, and predicting LTV of the user to be predicted based on a result output by the prediction model, wherein the prediction model comprises: a first deep neural network (DNN) configured to receive the data on the subscription information of the user to be predicted through an input layer; an autoencoder configured to receive the latest data on the status information of the user to be predicted through an input layer; a first convolution layer configured to receive the time-series data on the status information of the user to be predicted; a first UNET configured to receive data output from the first convolution layer through an input layer; a first dense layer connected to an output layer of the first UNET; a first Time2Vec layer configured to receive the time-series data on the status information of the user to be predicted; a first multi-layer transformer configured to receive data output from the first Time2Vec layer through an input layer; a second DNN configured to receive data output from the first multi-layer transformer through an input layer; a first weighted sum layer for calculating a weighted sum of data output from the first dense layer and data output from the second DNN; a second convolution layer configured to receive the time-series data on the action information of the user to be predicted; a second UNET configured to receive data output from the second convolution layer through an input layer; a second dense layer connected to an output layer of the second UNET; a second Time2Vec layer configured to receive the time-series data on the action information of the user to be predicted; a second multi-layer transformer configured to receive data output from the second Time2Vec layer through an input layer; a third DNN configured to receive data output from the second multi-layer transformer through an input layer; a second weighted sum layer for calculating a weighted sum of data output from the second dense layer and data output from the third DNN; a concatenation layer for concatenating data output from the first DNN, data output from the autoencoder, data output from the first weighted sum layer, and data output from the second weighted sum layer; a skip-connected autoencoder configured to receive data output from the concatenation layer through an input layer; and a third dense layer connected to an output layer of the skip-connected autoencoder” 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 “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “acquiring, inputting, receiving, calculating, concatenating, and configuring” in the context of this claim encompasses predicting life time value (LTV) of a user playing a mobile F2P game. 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.
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.
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 element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited on PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 6-4:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David L Lewis can be reached on 5712727673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/Ronald Laneau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715