DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having application No. 18/891,192 filed on September 20, 2024, presents claims 1-20 for examination.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 1, on line 1, “the selection” lacks antecedent basis. On lines 15-16, “based on predetermined number of entities that have leading entity scores” appears to be a typographical error that should recite “based on a predetermined number of entities that have leading entity scores”. On lines 26-27, “based on predetermined number of entities that have leading combination scores” appears to be a typographical error that should recite “based on a predetermined number of entities that have leading combination scores”.
Claims 2-7 inherit the above deficiencies of claim 1.
With respect to claims 8 and 15, each recites limitations similar to claim 1 and thus have the same deficiencies identified above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, in claim 15, “the qualifications” on line 1, “the one or more control sets” on line 4, and “the test set” on line 4” all lack antecedent basis.
Claims 9-14 inherit the above deficiencies of claim 8 and claims 15-20 inherit the above deficiencies of claim 15.
With respect to claim 4, on line 3, “the weight” and “the corresponding attribute” lack antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 7, on line 2, “the number of control sets” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 10, the last line recites “the number of selected attributes”. It is unclear how this may relate to “selected attributes” as recited on line 2 of parent claim 9. The scope of claim 10 is therefore indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution only, Examiner has interpreted claim 10 as reciting – [[the]] a number of the selected attributes --.
Claim 11 inherits the deficiency of claim 10.
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 13, line recites “the source urgency value” and it unclear what this might refer to. Furthermore, the last line recites “the number of selected attributes”. It is unclear how this may relate to “selected attributes” as recited on line 2 of parent claim 12. The scope of claim 13 is therefore indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution only, Examiner has interpreted claim 13 as reciting -- [[the]] a source urgency value … [[the]] a number of the selected attributes --.
Claim 14 inherits the deficiencies of claim 13.
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 recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; Claims 8-14 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture; and Claims 15-20 are directed to computerized methods and fall within the statutory category of processes Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.04).
Step 2A Prong 1:
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, The limitations of “determine one or more match sets for the test entities in the test set, wherein each match set includes a predetermined number of entities in the entity unit that are determined to be most similar to a corresponding test entity, the determination of a match set for each test entity comprising: generating an entity score for each entity in the entity unit, wherein the entity score is generated based on entity attributes associated with the entity and test attributes associated with the test entity; and generating the match set based on predetermined number of entities that have leading entity scores; remove entities in each of the match set that correspond to a test entity in the test set and that are duplicates of entities in other match sets, such that the one or more match sets includes entities that are unique; generate one or more entity combinations based on the entities in the one or more match sets, wherein the one or more entity combinations include one or more possible combinations of the entities in the one or more match sets; generate a combination score for each entity combination, wherein each combination score is generated based on combination attributes associated with the entity combination and test set attributes associated with the test entity; generate the one or more control sets based on predetermined number of entities that have leading combination scores,” as claimed, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human test engineer could use their observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion to do the following: (1) determining a match set comprising a set of branch offices in a financial organization that are most similar to a corresponding branch office in a test set of branch offices by (i) generating a score for each branch office based on a number and type of electronic devices in the branch office and a number and type of electronic devices in a corresponding branch office that is part of the test set of branch offices, and (ii) generating the match set based on the top 3 scoring branch offices; (2) removing any branch offices from the match set that are present in any other match sets; (3) generating branch office combinations by combining branch offices in the match set and generating a score for each branch office combination based on the number and type of electronic devices in the branch office combinations and in a corresponding branch office in the test set of branch offices; and (4) generate a control set comprising the top 3 scoring branch office combinations.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite limitations that fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
As the claims have been identified as reciting a judicial exception, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A Prong 2:
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “A computing (or computer) system … the system comprising a server computing device having a memory for storing computer-executable instructions and a processor that executes the computer-executable instructions to”1, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computing device, causes the computing device to:”2, “A computerized method”3, which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components to perform the abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f), particularly the discussion of relevant case law, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965)).
The claims further recite the following additional element(s): “retrieve entities associated with an entity unit after receiving instructions to generate the one or more control sets based on the test set, wherein the test set includes one or more test entities that correspond to respective entities in the entity unit … display, on a user interface, the one or more control sets including the entities that are included in each of the one or more control sets,” which is/are merely insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering, transmitting, and displaying data, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), particularly the discussion of relevant case law, e.g., CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), and will be analyzed further below in Step 2B as being well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Lastly, the claims recite the following additional element(s): “for improving the selection of one or more control sets based on a test set”4 and “for validating the qualifications of an entity to prevent fraud”5, which is/are merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(h), particularly the discussion of relevant case law, e.g., FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 8, and 15 not only recite a judicial exception but are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, Step 2B will evaluate whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Step 2B:
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components applying the abstract idea, recitation of a field of use/technological environment, and insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering, transmitting, and displaying data, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), particularly the relevant court decisions recognizing that this activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional, e.g., Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 2, the limitations recite “wherein the instructions to generate the one or more control sets based on the test set are provided by a user via a user interface that is configured to receive instructions to customize the generating of a control set based on one or more selections by the user,” which is insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering, displaying, transmitting, and/or storing data and selecting information (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, gathering, displaying, transmitting, and/or storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see § 2106.05(d)(II) for court decisions recognizing that this activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional) and user selection via a GUI is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see Evans et al. US 20090287668 A1, e.g., [0033], “the functionality of the GUI can permit the user to select one or more data sources … and to permit various other types of functionality commonly known in connection with GUIs such as saving setup parameters, saving results to files, printing desired information, selecting viewing parameters, etc.”; see also Beck et al. US 20060206831 A1, e.g., Abstract; see also Jackson et al. US 9154611 B1, e.g., Abstract; see also Christy et al. US 20090037881 A1, e.g., Abstract). Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 3, the limitations recite “wherein the user interface is configured to allow a user to select one or more attributes corresponding to each of the one or more entities,” which is insignificant extra-solution activity such as selecting information (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, this extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see Evans et al. US 20090287668 A1, e.g., [0033], “the functionality of the GUI can permit the user to select one or more data sources … and to permit various other types of functionality commonly known in connection with GUIs such as saving setup parameters, saving results to files, printing desired information, selecting viewing parameters, etc.”; see also Beck et al. US 20060206831 A1, e.g., Abstract; see also Jackson et al. US 9154611 B1, e.g., Abstract; see also Christy et al. US 20090037881 A1, e.g., Abstract). Additionally, the limitation “wherein selected attributes are utilized in determining the entities to be included in the one or more control sets and unselected attribute are not utilized in determining the entities to be included in the one or more control sets” is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human test engineer could determine which branch office attributes are significant and only include those attributes to determine of the control set. Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 4, the limitations recite “allow a user to determine an attribute importance level with respect to each selected attribute, the attribute importance level determining the weight that the corresponding attribute has on determining the entities to be included in the one or more control sets,” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human test engineer could use their experience, judgment, and opinion to determine that some branch office attributes, e.g. the number of electronic devices, are more important and therefore the engineer weights this more heavily in their determination of the control set. These limitations therefore also fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas identified above. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the user interface is configured to”, which merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 5, the limitations recite “wherein the user interface is configured to allow a user to select a time period in connection with the one or more attributes,” which is insignificant extra-solution activity such as selecting information (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, this extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see Evans et al. US 20090287668 A1, e.g., [0033], “the functionality of the GUI can permit the user to select one or more data sources … and to permit various other types of functionality commonly known in connection with GUIs such as saving setup parameters, saving results to files, printing desired information, selecting viewing parameters, etc.”; see also Beck et al. US 20060206831 A1, e.g., Abstract; see also Jackson et al. US 9154611 B1, e.g., Abstract; see also Christy et al. US 20090037881 A1, e.g., Abstract). Additionally, the limitation “wherein a value corresponding to each of the one or more attributes is an average value generated based on the time period” is a mathematical calculation, which falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(c)). Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 6, the limitations recite “wherein the user interface is configured to allow a user to select one or more filters,” which is insignificant extra-solution activity such as selecting information (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, this extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see Evans et al. US 20090287668 A1, e.g., [0033], “the functionality of the GUI can permit the user to select one or more data sources … and to permit various other types of functionality commonly known in connection with GUIs such as saving setup parameters, saving results to files, printing desired information, selecting viewing parameters, etc.”; see also Beck et al. US 20060206831 A1, e.g., Abstract; see also Jackson et al. US 9154611 B1, e.g., Abstract; see also Christy et al. US 20090037881 A1, e.g., Abstract). Additionally, the limitation “wherein each of the one or more filters removes one or more entities from the entity unit that violate criteria corresponding to the filters” is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human test engineer could manually remove foreign branch offices using no more than pen and paper. Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 7, the limitations recite “wherein the user interface is configured to allow a user to select the number of control sets,” which is insignificant extra-solution activity such as selecting information (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, this extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see Evans et al. US 20090287668 A1, e.g., [0033], “the functionality of the GUI can permit the user to select one or more data sources … and to permit various other types of functionality commonly known in connection with GUIs such as saving setup parameters, saving results to files, printing desired information, selecting viewing parameters, etc.”; see also Beck et al. US 20060206831 A1, e.g., Abstract; see also Jackson et al. US 9154611 B1, e.g., Abstract; see also Christy et al. US 20090037881 A1, e.g., Abstract). Additionally, the limitation “to generate based on the test set” is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human test engineer could get the test set of branch offices using no more than pen and paper. Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 9, the limitations recite “wherein the entity score is determined based at least in part on selected attributes, which are attributes that are utilized in determining the one or more control sets,” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human test engineer could use their experience, judgment, and opinion to determine the score based on particular attributes of the branch offices, e.g., the number and type of devices at the branch office and use this to determine the control set. These limitations therefore also fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas identified above. Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 10, the limitations recite an equation for the entity score, which falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(c)). Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 11, the limitations recite “wherein the entities in the entity unit are arranged based on their respective entity scores, in which a predetermined number of entities having the lowest entity scores are included in a match set,” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human test engineer could use their judgment order the entities based on highest-to-lowest score and include the top three in the match set. These limitations therefore also fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas identified above. Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 12, the limitations recite “wherein the combination score is determined based at least in part on selected attributes, which are attributes that are utilized in determining the one or more control sets,” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human test engineer could use their experience, judgment, and opinion to determine the combination score based on particular attributes of the branch offices, e.g., the number and type of devices from the branch office combination and use this to determine the control set. These limitations therefore also fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas identified above. Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 13, the limitations recite an equation for source urgency value, which falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(c)). Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 14, the limitations recite “wherein the one or more entity combinations are arranged based on their respective combination scores, in which a predetermined number of entity combinations having the lowest combination scores are included in a control set,” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human test engineer could use their judgment order the combined branch offices based on highest-to-lowest score and include the top three in the control set. These limitations therefore also fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas identified above. Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 16, the limitations recite “wherein each control set of the one or more control sets is associated with control set attributes, each control set attribute of a control set being associated with one or more control set attribute values that correspond to one or more points in time,” which merely provides details of the control set identified as being part of the abstract idea in parent claim 15 and could also be performed in the human mind as indicated above with respect to claim 15. These limitations therefore also fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas identified above. Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 17, the limitations recite “wherein each test set attribute is associated with one or more test set attribute values that correspond to the one or more points in time, and wherein each test set attribute corresponds to a respective control set attribute,” which merely provides details of the test attribute identified as being part of the abstract idea in parent claim 15 and could also be performed in the human mind as indicated above with respect to claim 15. These limitations therefore also fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas identified above. Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 18, the limitations recite “generating an analysis set that includes a graphical analysis for each attribute that corresponds to a test set attribute and a control set attribute, wherein the analysis set is generated based on the test set attributes and the control set attributes, and wherein a graphical analysis of a specific attribute visually indicates the control set attribute values and the test set attribute values over a time period associated with the one or more points in time,” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human test engineer could use their judgment order to line graph covering a period of time for attributes corresponding to test and control set attributes. These limitations therefore also fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas identified above. Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 19, the limitations recite “displaying one or more graphical analyses in the analysis set,” which is insignificant extra-solution activity such as displaying data (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, gathering, displaying, transmitting, and/or storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see § 2106.05(d)(II) for court decisions recognizing that this activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional). Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 20, the limitations recite “wherein the graphical analysis is at least one of a line graph, a bar chart, a pie chart, and a scatter plot,” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human test engineer could use their judgment order to line graph covering a period of time for attributes corresponding to test and control set attributes. These limitations therefore also fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas identified above. Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, (1) Saint-Jacques et al. US 20200104407 A1 discloses assigning pairs of clusters generated based on similarity, with one of the pairs assigned to the control group and the other assigned to the treatment group; (2) Friedlander et al. US 20080082356 A1 discloses selecting the optimal control cohort by minimizing differences between the potential control cohort members and the clustered treatment cohorts; (3) Opie et al. US 10373194 B2 discloses determining control group by a clustering and matching that is based on characteristics that are considered the most important; (4) Schweizer et al. US 20250238713 A1 discloses determining control groups based on applying a nearest neighbor algorithm; (5) Xu et al. “From Infrastructure to Culture: A/B Testing Challenges in Large Scale Social Networks” discloses users in treatment and control groups are matched post hoc using techniques such as propensity score matching; (6) Fatemi et al. “Minimizing Interference and Selection Bias in Network Experiment Design” discloses node matching to reduce the imbalance between treatment and control groups for A/B testing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN DAVID BERMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6 Eastern.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. 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.
/STEPHEN D BERMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2192
1 See claim 1.
2 See claim 8.
3 See claim 15.
4 See claim 1.
5 See claim 15.
Prosecution Insights