DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instance case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to a program product embodied in a non-transitory machine readable medium and claims 15-20 are directed to a system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims are directed to generating and outputting a data based on structure data and decision tree which is an abstract idea. Claims recite “accessing a structured data…; transforming the first set of key-value pairs….; projecting…; accessing one or more decision tree…; determining for each leaf node…; determining for each leaf node…; identifying an incomplete subset...; retrieving state or protocol information….; and generating an output…information.” which is grouped within the “mathematical calculations” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps of accessing data, reformatting that data, mapping the reformatted data to a point in a mathematical space, accessing a pre-existing reference structure and computing reference points from it, computing a similarity score between the subject’s point and each reference point, selecting the subset of reference points that are not the best matches based on those score, looking up stored information tied to the selected reference points and outputting that information which is a process that deals with mathematical concepts/calculations . Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05).
Further, claims are directed to evaluation judgement such as identifying an incomplete subset…based on the similarity score which is an abstract idea and deals with mental process. The ranking or comparing scores and picking a subset deals with the process a human could perform with the values in front of them using pen and paper. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas, in this case mathematical calculations and mental processes, is still an abstract idea. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as, a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, one or more processor and multi-dimensional space merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, one or more processor and multi-dimensional space perform the steps of accessing data, reformatting that data, mapping the reformatted data to a point in a mathematical space, accessing a pre-existing reference structure and computing reference points from it, computing a similarity score between the subject’s point and each reference point, selecting the subset of reference points that are not the best matches based on those score, looking up stored information tied to the selected reference points and outputting that information. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, one or more processor and multi-dimensional space, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of generating and outputting a data based on structure data and decision tree. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, one or more processor and multi-dimensional space perform the steps of accessing data, reformatting that data, mapping the reformatted data to a point in a mathematical space, accessing a pre-existing reference structure and computing reference points from it, computing a similarity score between the subject’s point and each reference point, selecting the subset of reference points that are not the best matches based on those score, looking up stored information tied to the selected reference points and outputting that information. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of generating and outputting a data based on structure data and decision tree. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further describes the abstract idea of generating and outputting a data based on structure data and decision tree. Specifically, claims 2, 9 and 16 further describing determining the leaf-node specific point which is part of the abstract idea. The claims 3, 10 and 17 describing the determination of the score which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 4, 11 and 18 further describing the values in the second set of key-value pairs which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19-20 further describing output which is part of the abstract idea of generating and outputting a data based on structure data and decision tree. Claims 7, 14 further describing transformation of data which is part of the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claim is also not patent eligible.
Statement regarding Prior art for claims 1-5
Regarding claims 1-20, JACOBS U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220215961 discloses: accessing a structured data set that includes a first set of key-value pairs, each of the first set of key-value pairs characterizing an assessment result or protocol characteristic for a subject; transforming the first set of key-value pairs into a second set of key-value pairs, wherein at least some keys in the second set of key-value pairs are different from each key in the first set of key-value pairs (See paragraphs 0087, 0132-0141 and 0169); accessing one or more decision trees that include a plurality of decision nodes and a plurality of leaf nodes, wherein each of the plurality of leaf nodes is connected to a root node via a leaf-node-specific trajectory, and wherein each of the plurality of decision nodes corresponds to a criterion based on at least one value in the second set of key-value pairs (See paragraphs 0110 and 0165).
NORI US Patent Publication 20200005148 discloses: accessing one or more decision trees that include a plurality of decision nodes and a plurality of leaf nodes, wherein each of the plurality of leaf nodes is connected to a root node via a leaf-node-specific trajectory, and wherein each of the plurality of decision nodes corresponds to a criterion based on at least one value in the second set of key-value pairs (See Abstract and claim 1).
However, prior art does not disclose neither singly nor in combination all of the specific combination of claim limitations which includes: projecting the second set of key-value pairs to identify a subject-specific point within a multi-dimensional space; determining, for each leaf node in the one or more decision trees, a leaf-node specific point within the multi-dimensional space based on the leaf-node-specific trajectory; determining, for each leaf node in the one or more decision trees, a similarity score based on the leaf-node-specific point and the subject-specific point; identifying an incomplete subset of the plurality of leaf nodes based on the similarity scores; retrieving state or protocol information associated with each leaf node in the incomplete subset; and generating an output associated with the subject that includes the state or protocol information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights