DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the amendment filed on 2/18/26.
Examiner notes Applicant’s foreign priority date of 1/31/24, which stems from 202410139578.9 (China).
Examiner further notes Applicant’s Track One request, which was filed on 1/8/25 and subsequently granted on 2/27/25.
Examiner further notes the previous withdrawal of prior art on 8/8/25.
Claims 1, 8-9, and 16-17 have been amended.
Claims 2, 6-7, 10, 14-15, and 18 have been cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16-17, and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, amended claims 1, 8-9, and 16-17 now describe a “candidate intervention variable” and a “target outcome variable.” These terms do not appear in the specification, and it is impossible to determine their intended meaning. In fact, neither “intervention” nor “outcome” appear in the specification. Examiner attempted to contact Applicant (see Examiner Interview Summary dated 3/11/26) for clarification, but Applicant was unable to provide an explanation as to the intended meaning of the terms.
Therefore, the aforementioned absence of written support creates a lack of clarity that renders the claims indefinite. For purposes of examination, Examiner is treating these terms as an “e-commerce incentive task” and “target to be incentivized,” respectively.
Claims 3-5, 8, 11-13, 16, and 19-20 are likewise rejected due to their dependency on independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
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, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16-17, and 19-20 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.
Under Step 1 of the USPTO's subject matter eligibility framework, the examiner must determine whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 recites a "computer-implemented data processing method," which nominally qualifies as a process. Claim 9 recites an "electronic device" comprising a processor and memory, which nominally qualifies as a machine. Claim 17 recites a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium," which nominally qualifies as a manufacture. Accordingly, the claims appear to fall within at least one statutory category, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17, in part, describe an invention comprising: determining a causal relationship between an e-commerce incentive task and a target outcome metric based on expert knowledge of the e-commerce scenario through a pre-constructed indicator causal graph; constructing the indicator causal graph by determining causal graph construction rules based on expert knowledge and arranging causal relationships between candidate incentive indicators and the target indicator; determining a causal path between the target incentive indicator and the target indicator; determining direct and indirect impact values of the target incentive indicator on the target indicator under interference of mediation and confounding indicators through regression processing; and predicting the impact of the e-commerce incentive task on the target outcome metric based on the sum of the direct and indirect impact values to obtain a selection result for the e-commerce incentive task. As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of selecting which e-commerce promotional incentive task to deploy by analyzing causal relationships between incentive indicators and a target business metric, and subsequently predicting the incentive's impact on that metric, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(a), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions and business practices for managing e-commerce incentive programs). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: obtaining a candidate intervention variable and a target outcome variable as input data; and outputting a selection result of the candidate intervention variable. The examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Accenture Global Servs. v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.").
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including a "processor" for executing the method, a "memory" for storing computer instructions, and a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" for storing and executing the claimed operations. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., generic computer components executing instructions).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions are merely facilitated by generic computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Receiving or obtaining input data, e.g., gathering data as a precursor to performing the abstract idea. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Outputting/Presenting data to a user. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 3-5, 11-13, and 19-20 further limit the abstract idea by specifying details for constructing the indicator causal graph, such as determining a "global pointing rule," identifying a "specified pointing rule," or adjusting an initial causal graph in response to modification instructions. However, these remain abstract concepts describing how expert business knowledge and rules are codified and do not add a practical application or significantly more. Dependent claims 8 and 16 add a threshold-based decision step (retaining the candidate intervention variable if the sum of impact values exceeds a preset threshold), which is a simple data-comparison operation that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16-17, 19-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Puri et al. (8170907), directed to system for optimizing trade promotion and distribution spending in fragmented markets.
Abu El Ata et al. (20240169121), directed to predictive risk assessment in manufacturing system modeling.
Liu et al. (20230153636), directed to a method for causal analysis.
He et al. (8510149), directed to a method of constructing causality network graphs and visual inference presentations for business rule applications.
Weber et al. (8660905), directed to a method and system for validating process models.
Relevant Non-Patent Literature
Mei, Huawei, and Xinyao Li. "Research on e-commerce coupon user behavior prediction technology based on decision tree algorithm." International Core Journal of Engineering 5.9 (2019): 48-58.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the claims under 35 USC 101 remain unpersuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a specific technical solution rather than an abstract idea, characterizing the claimed invention as a "computer-implemented data processing pipeline" comprising a causal graph data structure, a graph traversal algorithm, and customized regression processing. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The issue under Prong One is not whether the claim recites technical-sounding language or employs mathematical operations, but rather what the claim is directed to when considered as a whole. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the claims, considered as a whole, are directed to selecting which e-commerce promotional incentive task to deploy by analyzing causal relationships between incentive indicators and a target business metric and predicting the incentive's impact on that metric. This is a quintessential method of organizing human activity - specifically, commercial interactions and business practices for managing e-commerce incentive programs - regardless of the mathematical or computational tools used to implement it. The use of a causal graph, graph traversal, and regression processing does not change the fundamental character of the claimed invention; these are simply the tools used to execute the underlying business decision-making process. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed to business decision-making based on data analysis remain abstract even when reciting specific computational steps).
Applicant's characterization of the "prediction deviation" or "estimation bias" problem as a "technical" problem is also not persuasive. The problem of confounding bias in causal inference is a mathematical and statistical problem, not a problem arising from the operation of the computer itself. The specification does not describe any malfunction of computer hardware or software that the claims remedy; rather, it describes a desire to obtain more accurate business predictions. A problem rooted in the accuracy of mathematical analysis of business data is not a technical problem in the patent-eligibility sense. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (improvements to the quality of information produced by mathematical analysis are not improvements to computer technology).
Next, Applicant argues that the claims integrate any alleged abstract concept into a practical application by improving data processing system functionality and solving a specific technical problem relating to confounding bias. Applicant's reliance on Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), is misplaced and not persuasive. In Thales, the claims were directed to a specific configuration of physical sensors and a mathematical equation that together produced an improved inertial tracking system — a physical, technological apparatus. The improvement was to the functioning of the physical tracking system itself, not merely to the quality of data output. Here, by contrast, the claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any physical technological system. The alleged improvement (generating separate direct and indirect effect estimates rather than a single aggregate estimate) is an improvement to the informational output of a mathematical analysis, not to the computer's own operation. Courts have consistently held that improvements to the quality or accuracy of information generated by mathematical analysis do not constitute an improvement to computer technology sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 ("merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more, is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis").
Furthermore, the claims do not recite any particular technical configuration of a computer system that achieves the alleged improvement. The causal graph, graph traversal, and regression processing steps are recited at a high level of generality without any specific technical implementation details that would distinguish them from a generic application of well-known mathematical techniques on a generic computer. The specification confirms this, describing the implementation in terms of conventional computer components performing conventional operations. An abstract idea does not become a practical application merely by asserting that it produces better results. See Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1338 (claimed improvement must be to the technology itself, not to the abstract idea).
Next, Applicant argues that the combination of a knowledge-based causal graph, graph traversal algorithm, and role-based customized regression processing constitutes an unconventional ordered combination amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant's reliance on Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Enfish is unpersuasive.
Applicant's assertion that "no conventional or routine method exists in the prior art" that combines the recited elements is conclusory and unsupported by evidence. Mere attorney argument is insufficient to demonstrate that claimed elements are unconventional. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368. The examiner notes that causal graph construction from domain knowledge, graph traversal algorithms, and regression analysis with mediation and confounding variable control are all well-established techniques in the fields of statistics, econometrics, and machine learning, and their combination in a data analysis pipeline does not constitute an inventive concept.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is sustained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621