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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Limitation: “… provide the selection guidance to the user identifying the blocked item descriptor…” The underlined phrase has antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding to claims 1-10
Claim 1
A system for biologically determined artificial intelligence selection guidance, the system comprising a computing device designed and configured to:
receive at least a biological extraction and an item descriptor from a user;
identify, a user set identifier matching the user;
produce a selection guidance using the user set identifier and the item descriptor;
determine whether the item descriptor is suitable for the user;
block a different item of the selection guidance as a function of determining the item descriptor is not suitable for the user; and
provide the selection guidance to the user identifying the blocked item descriptor.
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system comprising a computing device to perform steps a) - e). Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Steps d) and e) are nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea).
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, steps b, c, and f fall within the mathematical process grouping of abstract ideas and steps d and e fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations (b) - (f) are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations
receive at least a biological extraction and an item descriptor from a user;
identify, a user set identifier matching the user;
produce a selection guidance using the user set identifier and the item descriptor;
provide the selection guidance to the user identifying the blocked item descriptor.
a) MPEP § 2106.05(a) "Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field."
There is no improvement to Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field. The limitation a) is simply collecting data, step b) and c) are simply observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind; and f) displaying the results. These limitations do not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, or any other technologies.
b) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. The judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
The claim are silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as “a computing device.” Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
c) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The claim operates to collecting data in step a); observing and making judgment in step b) and c), and displaying output in step f). The steps are not a "transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]" See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
d) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The limitations collecting data in step a); observing and making judgment in step b) and c), and displaying output in step f) are not meaningful limitations because collecting, observing-judging, and displaying are pre and post-solution activities. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
e) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitations a)-c) and f) are not meaningful limitations because collecting data in step a); observing and making judgment in step b) and c), and displaying output in step f) are pre and post-solution activities.
f) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “A computing device” limitation is simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitations a)-c) and f) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite any non-convention or non-generic arrangement because collecting data, ranking collected data, and displaying the results are all conventional activities. Taking these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 recites “the selection guidance comprises a suitability score; and determining whether the item descriptor is not suitable for the user comprises comparing the suitability score of the item descriptor to a threshold.” Comparing is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 3 recites “a suitability score comprises a user set suitability score; and producing the selection guidance comprises calculating the user set suitability score as a function of the user set identifier and the item descriptor.” Calculating a user set suitability score is nothing more than mathematical process (i.e., mathematical concept [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Claim 4 recites “wherein calculating the user set suitability score comprises: receiving user set suitability training data comprising a plurality of user set identifiers correlated to the user set suitability score; training a suitability model using the user set suitability training data; and determining the user set suitability score as a function of the trained suitability model.” A machine learning model (i.e., trained suitability model) is a mathematical representation of relationship between inputs and outputs. Given broadest reasonable interpretation, training a suitability model (e.g., a machine learning model) is nothing more than mathematical process (i.e., mathematical concept [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) of adjusting parameters to create a function that maps input data to an output data. Further, determining the user set suitability score as a function of the trained suitability model is simply feed data input to a math function to obtain the calculated output. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 5 recites “a suitability score comprises a user specific suitability score; and producing the selection guidance comprises calculating the user specific suitability score as a function of a biological extraction, user data, and the item descriptor.” Calculating the user specific suitability score is nothing more than mathematical process (i.e., mathematical concept [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 depends on claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claim 5. Claim 6 recites “receiving user specific suitability training data comprising a plurality of biological extractions, past user data, and a plurality of item descriptors correlated to the user specific suitability score; training a suitability model using the user specific suitability training data; and determining the user specific suitability score as a function of the trained suitability model.” A machine learning model (i.e., trained suitability model) is a mathematical representation of relationship between inputs and outputs. Given broadest reasonable interpretation, training a suitability model (e.g., a machine learning model) is nothing more than mathematical process (i.e., mathematical concept [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea) of adjusting parameters to create a function that maps input data to an output data. Further, determining the user set suitability score as a function of the trained suitability model is simply feed data input to a math function to obtain the calculated output. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 7 recites “receive an exclusion list from a user; and remove the item descriptor from the selection guidance as a function of a presence of item descriptor on the exclusion list.” Identifying a presence of item descriptor on the exclusion list is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 8 recites “to decrypt the biological extraction.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Claim 9 recites “wherein decrypting the biological extraction comprises decrypting the biological extraction using a secure proof.” Decrypting data using Secure proof /zero-knowledge proof is well-known protocol. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 depends on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Claim 10 recites “place a recurring order for the different item as a function of the suitability score.” This limitation is simply pre and post-solution activities. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
Claims 11-20 are similar to claim 1-10. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Robert Beausoliel can be reached at 571 262 3645. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2167
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2167