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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 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 argues that:
The “certain methods of organizing human activity grouping is limited to activity that falls with the numerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerate sub-groupings except in rare circumstances”, and also because the claims are directed to a designed experiment involve execution of multiple variants of a computer-executable application.
In response, the grouping of Abstract ideas also includes “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes”. Here the claimed concept is directed to a mental process.
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 “Mental concept” 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 using mental/manual processes.
The BRI of these limitations describes steps or functions of:
“generating, in the production computing environment, in association with the individual data instances respectively associated with the particular application variants, and determining whether the results satisfy the success criteria, and causing one of the first application variant or the second application variant to execute in the production computing environment in association with subsequent data instances, based on determining whether the results satisfy the success criteria”.
These functions are viewed also 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 does 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, 11 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 of an application.
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 remain directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s representative then argues that the claims as now amended recite additional elements beyond the alleged abstract ideas, and integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s representative further states that the claims recite a “problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome” as recited in the claims”.
In response, 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 processor or computer performing generic computer functions.
Furthermore, there is not a showing or description of the selecting, generating 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 and variants of an application, and determine whether the results satisfy the success criteria, and causing, one of the first application variant or the second application variant to execute in the production computing environment in association with subsequent data instances, based on determining whether the results satisfy the success criteria.
The functions performed by the computing system involve 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.
Furthermore, in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., the Courts held that claims to a method for making websites easier to navigate on a small-screen device were not directed to an abstract idea. 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the claims are not drafted in the format CoreWireless. Rather than providing a technical solution that improves the way the computing device, the applicant is merely using alternate ways of using a processor for generating, in the production computing environment, in association with the individual data instances respectively associated with the particular application variants, and determining whether the results satisfy the success criteria, and causing one of the first application variant or the second application variant to execute in the production computing environment in association with subsequent data instances, based on determining whether the results satisfy the success criteria”.
The computer system when viewed as a processor is then applied to the abstract idea. The claims do not provide sufficient details to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. See, e.g. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (explaining that claims that “amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea…using some unspecified, generic computer” is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention” (quoting Mayo, 566, U.S. at 77, 79)); Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Capital One Fin.Corp., 850 F. 3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim language here provides only a result-oriented-solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it”).
Each of the independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic computing system or processor) for selecting, generating and determining variants of an application 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").
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s representative then argues that the claims provide an inventive concept vis-à-vis step 2B of the Mayo-Alice test.
Applicant’s representative then states: Applicant respectfully submits that there is no indication that the particular combination of elements recited in Applicant's claims is "well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field." Id. For instance, Applicant respectfully submits that there is no indication that it is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field to perform the claimed functions.
In response, the claims merely recite selecting, generating and determining data which may be used using mental/manual processes. The claims use a generic processor as noted in the applicant’s specification. The claimed computing system or processor is seen as a generic type processor.
Using a known or conventional capturing device to perform generic functions that can be viewed as mental processes is not an inventive concept as was found in Alice at 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (emphasis added). The same principle is applied here.
Similarly, the claimed calls for a processor that selects, determines and generates data. The claimed processor does not add a significant more than the abstract idea. As noted in the applicant’s specification, the generic processing unit can be any known server or computer processor or software or hardware components. There is not a specific or new algorithm noted in the applicant’s specification perform the claimed functions.
The reliance of a computer or processor to perform its 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, the "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive concept. 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.
A specific type of data or data values as such are within the realm of abstract data, See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The rejection of claims 1-20 is found below.
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 1-8 and 10-21 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:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by a computing system comprising at least one processor, and in response to
receipt of individual of data instances within a production computing environment,
that the individual data instances qualify for a designed experiment that is associated with multiple application variants of a computer-executable application, defines success criteria for determining that a first application variant, of the multiple application variants, is to be used in the production computing environment instead of a second application variant of the multiple application variants;
selecting, by the computing system, and in response to the receipt of the individual data
instances, particular application variants, of the computer-executable application, to be
respectively associated with the individual data instances;
generating, by the computing system, results by executing the particular application variants, in the production computing environment, in association with the individual
data instances respectively associated with the particular application variants;
determining, by the computing system, whether the results satisfy the success criteria; and causing, by the computing system, one of the first application variant or the second
application variant to execute in the production computing environment in association with
subsequent data instances, based on determining whether the results satisfy the success criteria.
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 the individual 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 computer-executable application to present information associated with data instances using different user interface elements.
Claim 6 recites wherein the results comprise synchronous results of the particular application variants being executed in association with the individual data instances.
Claim 7 recites wherein the results comprise 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 the individual data instances are associated with at least one of users, customers, insurance claims, products, or customer service tickets.
Claim 10 recites wherein the variant recommendation identifies:
the first application variant is caused to execute in association with the subsequent data instances based on determining that the results satisfy the success criteria or the second application variant is caused to execute in association with the subsequent data instances based on determining that the results do not satisfy the success criteria.
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 in response to receipt of individual data instances within a production computing environment, that the individual data instances qualify for a designed experiment that:
is associated with multiple application variants of a computer-executable application, and;
defines success criteria for determining that a first application variant, of the multiple application variants, is to be used in the production computing environment instated of a second application variant of the multiple application variants;
select in response to the receipt of the individual data instance, particular application variants, of the computer-executable application, to be respectively associated with the individual data instances;
generate results by executing the particular application variants, in the production computing environment, in association with the individual data instances respectively associated with the particular application variants;
determine whether the results satisfy the success criteria; and
cause one of the first application variant or the second application variant to execute in the production computing environment in association with the subsequent data instance, based on determining whether the results satisfy the success criteria.
Claim 12 recites wherein the multiple variants comprise different logic variants that are configured to cause the computer-executable 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 computer-executable application to present information associated with data instances using different user interface elements.
Claim 14 recites wherein the results comprise synchronous results of the particular application variants being executed in association with the individual data instances.
Claim 15 recites wherein the results comprise 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 individual 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 in response to receipt of individual data instances within a production computing environment, that the individual data instances qualify for a designed experiment, that:
is associated with multiple application variants of a computer-executable application; and;
defines success criteria for determining that a first application variant of the multiple application variants, is to be used in the production environment instead of a second application variant of the multiple application variants;
select, in response to the receipt of the individual data instances, particular application variants, of the computer-executable application, to be respectively associated with the individual data instances;
generate results by executing the particular application variants, in the production computing environment, in association with the individual data instances respectively associated with the particular application variants;
determine whether the results satisfy the success criteria; and
cause one of the first application variant or the second application variant to execute in the production environment in association with subsequent data instances, based on determining whether the results satisfy the success criteria.
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 computer-executable application to present information associated with data instances using different user interface elements.
Claim 19 recites wherein the results comprise synchronous results of the particular application variants being executed in association with the individual data instances.
Claim 20 recites wherein the results comprise asynchronous results with operations performed by one or more additional elements at times after the particular application variants are executed in association with the individual data instances.
Claim 21 recites: wherein:
the computing system selects the particular application variants to be respectively associated with the individual data instances based on tracking data associated with the designed experiment, and the tracking data indicates how many previous data instances have been, in association with the designed experiment, respectively associated with the first application variant and the second application variant.
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:
"generating, by the computing system, results by executing the particular application variants, in the production computing environment, in association with the individual data instances respectively associated with the particular application variants, determining, by the computing system, whether the results satisfy the success criteria, and causing, by the computing system, one of the first application variant or the second application variant to execute in the production computing environment in association with subsequent data instances, based on determining whether the results satisfy the success criteria", as recited in independent claim 11 and as similarly recited in independent claims 1 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.
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
May 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights