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, 2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-16, and 18-19. No claims have been added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-20 remain pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite an improved technique for accurately determining a degree of impact of a performance indicator on a business indicator, and thus integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant contends that the claim limitations, particularly the determination of regression coefficients and their use, improve the accuracy of the analysis and therefore satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Examiner disagrees. The claims recite mathematical concepts, specifically statistical analyses involving correlations and regression coefficients between performance indicators and business indicators. According to MPEP § 2106.04(a)), mathematical concepts, including mathematical relationships and calculations, are recognized as abstract ideas. While a claim that improves the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field may be patent eligible, the claimed method focuses on determining regression coefficients to assess business performance indicators. The claimed steps involve obtaining data, performing statistical computations, and determining degrees of impact. These steps are performed on data related to an application’s business performance but do not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer or technology itself, nor do they claim a specific technical solution to a technical problem.
Applicant further asserts, “Claim 1 integrates into a practical application of improving an accuracy of determining a degree of impact of a performance indicator of an application on a business indicator of the application.” However, an asserted improvement in accuracy or analytical quality does not by itself render an abstract mathematical technique patent eligible unless the claim recites how that accuracy improvement is tied to a specific technological improvement or otherwise transforms the claim into a practical application (see Enfish v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “obtaining a plurality of performance indicators of an application associated with a business indicator for the application, the business indicator indicating a performance level of the application at a user side to which the application is provided; determining, among the plurality of performance indicators, a target performance indicator having a correlation with at least one first performance indicator greater than or equal to a first threshold; determining a first regression coefficient between the target performance indicator and a respective one of the at least one first performance indicator, each first regression coefficient indicating a degree of impact of the respective first performance indicator on the target performance indicator; determining a plurality of second regression coefficients between the business indicator and a plurality of second performance indicators, the second performance indicators being performance indicators other than the target performance indicator among the plurality of performance indicators, each second regression coefficient indicating a degree of impact of a respective second performance indicator on the business indicator; and determining a regression coefficient of the target performance indicator to the business indicator based on the first regression coefficient and the plurality of second regression coefficients, the regression coefficient of the target performance indicator to the business indicator indicating a degree of impact of the target performance indicator on the business indicator.” The limitations above are processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall into the “mathematical concepts” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas –“concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion”, see MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) (III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “an electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory; wherein the memory stores a computer-executed instruction; and the processor executes the computer-executed instruction stored in the memory, causing the processor to perform operations” (claim 8) and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer-executed instruction, and the computer-executed instruction, when executed by the processor, implements operations” (claim 15) are not indicative of integration into a practical application since they are recited at a high level of generality. Additionally, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and merely use a computer as a tool to practice the judicial exception. Further the recitation that the business indicator is for “an application” is a generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use- see MPE 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements are still mere instructions to implement the judicial exception and field of use.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented above. The claims as a whole describe how to apply the concept of regression modeling of performance and business indicators using “an electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory; wherein the memory stores a computer-executed instruction; and the processor executes the computer-executed instruction stored in the memory, causing the processor to perform operations” (claim 8) and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer-executed instruction, and the computer-executed instruction, when executed by the processor, implements operations” (claim 15), which are generic computer components, to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, the additional elements of are known and conventional computing elements as evidenced by the spec at para 0027; 0036; 0121-0131---describing these elements at a high level of generality. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite additional details that further narrow the previously recited abstract idea. There are no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application; nor are there additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Reason for Claims Not Being Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The closest prior art is:
Shi et al (US 2019/0205702) discloses determining a performance indicator for video content. Determining a sensitivity level between the performance indicator and each video content.
Harutyunyan et al (US 2023/0099001) discloses KPI/metric collection, normalization, synchronization as well as determining regression coefficients between the business indicator (KPI) and the second indicators.
Anand et al (US 2018/0196837) discloses monitoring KPIS and performance outputs over intervals including correlations between KPIs and performance and selecting KPI with highest coefficient as target.
Trivedi et al (US 2024/0205106) discloses user inputs received by way of the graphical user interface to define the threshold comparison condition are received by way of a graphical user interface that facilitates defining one or more KPIs that are being monitored, one or more comparison conditions (e.g., greater than, less than, equal to, not equal to, greater than or equal to, less than or equal to, within a range, outside a range, or some other suitable basis upon which values may be compared), an option to compare KPI values for different KPIs that are added for inclusion in the threshold correlation rule, and a preset threshold to which the one or more KPI values may be compared.
Zhang et al, “A KPI-Based Probabilistic Soft Sensor Development Approach that Maximizes the Coefficient of Determination” discloses conditional mean of KPI on others within Gaussian components yields coefficients.
There is no prior art known at this time that can be reasonably combined to teach “determining a regression coefficient of the target performance indicator to the business indicator based on the first regression coefficient and the plurality of second regression coefficients, the regression coefficient of the target performance indicator to the business indicator indicating a degree of impact of the target performance indicator on the business indicator”.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNON S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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. 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.
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights