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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments and Responses to the 35 USC 101 rejection:
Applicant’s representative argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea and that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant’s representative further states “
For example, as discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite particular application variants" of a "computer-executable elements, including "executing application" in association with "respective sets of data instances," that cannot be considered to be mental processes, and are therefore "additional elements" that are to be considered at Prong Two of Step 2A and at Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Applicant respectfully submits that these additional elements indicate that the claims are not, as a whole, directed to an abstract idea.
In response, it has been clearly enumerated that claims directed to an abstract idea are patent-ineligible. Abstract ideas are characterized as concepts identified by the courts which include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) mental processes and (3) certain methods of organizing human activity.
Among those concepts performed as being identified in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” are “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Here, the claimed concept falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106. 04(a}2)UD, because they amount to limitations specifying steps for determining, that a plurality of data instances qualify for a designed experiment.
The BRI of these limitations describes steps or functions of "selecting, particular variants to be associated with respective sets of data instances within a plurality of data instances, executing in association with the respective sets of data instances, and determining whether results in association with the respective sets of instances prove the hypothesis".
These functions are viewed as mental/manual processes.
Therefore the claims recite a mental/manual processes as such is an abstract concept.
Each of these independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic computing system comprising a processor) as such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
As such, claims 1, 9 and 16 recite a selecting and determining function as these functions are not a technological implementation or improvement of a technological field.
Applicant is to be reminded that a system, apparatus, machine or method for performing business, however, novel, useful, or commercially successful, is not patentable apart from the means for making the system practically useful or carrying it out. The applicant is making use of a generic computing system to finally determine results of particular variants, in association with data instances, prove an hypothesis.
Accordingly, the additional elements (such as a generic computing system with a processor) do not improve (1) the processor or database and user interface, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (computing device or system) ; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
None of the steps, functions and/or elements recited in the claims provide, and nowhere in the applicant’s shows any description or explanation as to how the claimed computing system is intended to provide: (1) a “solution . . . necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (2) “a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” as explained in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336; or (3) an “unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem” that “improve[s] the performance of the system itself,” as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s representative then argues that the claims include an invention concept and further states that the claims meet the requirements of Steps 2A and 2B of the Alice Mayo Test.
In response, the reliance of a computer or computing system with a processor to perform their routine tasks even more accurately is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible subject matter as noted in Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359. As indicated by the court "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive incept. The claims or even the applicant's specification does not support or provide or claim any specifically inventive technology or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
As noted in the applicant’s specification, there is not a specific structure or computer components to perform the claimed functions. The generic computing system can be any known server or computer processor or software or hardware components. However, there is not a specific or new algorithm noted in the applicant’s specification to generate the claimed functions. The claimed computing system noted in the applicant's specification is a generic computer processors or computer performing generic computer functions.
Furthermore., there is not a showing or description of the selecting and determining of data instances in a computing system to effect specific improvements to the computing system. Furthermore there is a lacking of evidence that the claims improve the manner in which the computing system selects and determines data, as the claims in Enfish had performed their claimed invention via a “self-referential table” for a computer database. Applicant is being referred to Enfish, 822, F.3d at 1327, 1337.
The instant claims merely select and determine data instances to prove an hypothesis in a computing system. These are routine and generic computer functions for processing or effecting the abstract idea. Hence, there is not a significant improvement of the computing system or the architecture of the overall system.
The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, are merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 remain 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.
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.
Specifically, claim 11 is directed to a system. Claims 1 and 16 are directed to a method. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
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).
The claims when the bolded limitations are removed recite the following limitations:
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by a computing system comprising at least one processor, that a plurality of data instances qualify for a designed experiment, wherein the designed experiment:
has a hypothesis, and is associated multiple application variants of a computer-executable application;
selecting, by the computing system, particular application variants, of the computer- executable application, to be associated with respective sets of data instances within the plurality of data instances;
executing, by the computing system, the particular application variants in association with the respective sets of data instances; and
determining, by the computing system, whether results of executing the particular application variants, in association with the respective sets of data instances, prove the hypothesis.
Claim 2 recites wherein the multiple application variants comprise different logic variants that are configured to cause the application to process data instances using different logic.
Claim 3 recites wherein the different logic variants comprise at least one of:
different machine learning models, or different rule-based models.
Claim 4 recites wherein the different logic variants are configured to determine particular downstream entities, from among a plurality of downstream entities, to which individual data instances, of the plurality of data instances, are to be routed for further processing.
Claim 5 recites wherein the multiple application variants comprise different user interface variants that are configured to cause the application to present information associated with data instances using different user interface elements.
Claim 6 recites wherein the results are synchronous results of the particular application variants being executed in association with the respective sets of data instances.
Claim 7 recites wherein the results are asynchronous results associated with operations performed by one or more additional elements at times after the particular application variants with the respective sets of data instances.
Claim 8 recites wherein individual data instances, in the plurality of data instances, are associated with at least one of users, customers, insurance claims, products, or customer service tickets.
Claim 9 recites generating, by the computing system, a variant recommendation, identifying one of the multiple variants, based on whether the results prove the hypothesis.
Claim 10 recites wherein the variant recommendation identifies: a first application variant based on determining that the results prove the hypothesis, or a second application variant based on determining that the results disprove the hypothesis.
Claim 11 recites: A computing system, comprising:
at least one processor, and
memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
determine that a plurality of data instances qualify for a designed experiment, wherein the designed experiment:
has a hypothesis, and
is associated with multiple application variants;
select particular application variants, to be associated with respective sets of data instances within the plurality of data instances;
execute the particular application variants in association with the respective sets of data instances; and
determine whether results of executing the particular application variants, in association with the respective sets of data instances, prove the hypothesis.
Claim 12 recites wherein the multiple variants comprise different logic variants that are configured to cause the application to process data instances using different logic.
Claim 13 recites wherein the multiple application variants comprise different user interface variants that are configured to cause the application to present information associated with data instances using different user interface elements.
Claim 14 recites wherein the results are synchronous results of the particular application variants being executed in association with the respective sets of data instances.
Claim 15 recites wherein the results are asynchronous results associated with operations performed by one or more additional elements at times after the particular application variants are executed in association with the respective sets of data instances.
Claim 16 recites: One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
determine that a plurality of data instances qualify for a designed experiment, wherein the designed experiment has a hypothesis, and
is associated with multiple application variants;
select particular application variants to be associated with respective sets of data instances within the plurality of data instances;
execute the particular application variants in association with the respective sets of data instances; and
determine whether results of the particular application variants in association with the respective sets of data instances, prove the hypothesis.
Claim 17 recites wherein the multiple variants comprise different logic variants that are configured to cause the application to process data instances using different logic.
Claim 18 recites wherein the multiple application variants comprise different user interface variants that are configured to cause the application to present information associated with data instances using different user interface elements.
Claim 19 recites wherein the results are synchronous results of the particular application variants being executed in association with the respective sets of data instances.
Claim 20 recites wherein the results are asynchronous results with operations performed by one or more additional elements at times after the particular application variants in association with the respective sets of data instances.
As per claims 1, 11 and 16, applicant is to be noted that the steps or functions of
“determining” or “determine” , “select” or “selecting” involve mental processes and/or generic computer functions.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of performing mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because it amounts to the functions of :
"selecting, particular variants to be associated with respective sets of data instances within a plurality of data instances, executing in association with the respective sets of data instances, and determining whether results in association with the respective sets of instances prove the hypothesis".
These functions are viewed as mental/manual processes.
The BRI of the claimed limitations describes functions of :
“The BRI of these limitations describes steps or functions of "selecting, particular variants to be associated with respective sets of data instances within a plurality of data instances, executing in association with the respective sets of data instances, and determining whether results in association with the respective sets of instances prove the hypothesis".
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the bolded limitations noted above as understood to be the additional limitations:
The claimed “machine learning model”, “rule-based models”, “computing system”, “processor” and “user interface elements” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
Performing steps or functions by a processor or a computing system merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05.
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
“Determining data” and “selecting data” are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The functions of the claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors or computing system which selects data, determines data and displays data using user interface elements.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of "selecting, particular variants to be associated with respective sets of data instances within a plurality of data instances, executing in association with the respective sets of data instances, and determining whether results in association with the respective sets of instances prove the hypothesis".
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a “computing system”, a “processor”, “machine learning models”, and “user elements” does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed processor and computing system, learning models and user interfaces are noted to a be a generic computer for selecting data and performing routine and expected computer functions therein. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processor”, “computing system”, “learning models” and “user interface elements” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
"selecting, particular variants to be associated with respective sets of data instances within a plurality of data instances, executing in association with the respective sets of data instances, and determining whether results in association with the respective sets of instances prove the hypothesis", as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 16.
Leung et al ( US-20220405299-A1) disclose a model visualization system analyzes
model behavior to identify clusters of data instances with similar behavior. For a selected feature, data instances are modified to set the selected feature to different values evaluated by a model to determine corresponding model outputs. The feature values and outputs may be visualized in an instance-feature variation plot. The instance-feature variation plots for the different data instances may be clustered to identify latent differences in behavior of the model with respect to different data instances when varying the selected feature. The number of clusters for the clustering may be automatically determined, and the clusters may be further explored by identifying another feature which may explain the different behavior of the model for the clusters, or by identifying outlier data instances in the clusters.
Ayik et al (US 11301493 B2 ) disclose a system and method for providing data exploration techniques. For instance, user inputs specifying one or more data parameters can be received. One or more data sets can be obtained from a data source based at least in part on the data parameters. The data can be grouped into one or more groupings based at least in part on the data parameters. Each data grouping can have a plurality of subsets. A distribution of data can be determined for each data subset. A plurality of data representations can be generated based at least in part on the data parameters and the distributions of data. The distributions of data for each data subset can then be compared. One or more suggested applications or at least one data subset can be determined based at least in part on the comparison.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
January 31, 2026