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 .
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 abstract idea without significantly more. The reasons are as following:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 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, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to computing system, a computer-implemented method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim 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 limitations of claim 1, “a set of acts comprising” obtaining demographic data, obtaining aggregate values, determining model parameters, determining assignment probabilities and probabilistically assigning, each of the limitations is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for those steps in the context of these claims encompasses the user mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a processor, a memory and system, are mere generic computer component.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data-gathering are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAPE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPO2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPO2d at 1092-93). The claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using processor to perform the executing the instructions step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 15 are analyzed the same way as claim 1. Therefore, claims 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the similar rationale.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,882 in view of Gopalakrishnan (US 2014/0046653).
Patent No. 12,244,882 discloses most of the claim except an entropy model.
Gopalakrishnan discloses an entropy model; see at least paragraphs 0061, 0066 and 0072.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 12,244,882 by the teachings of Gopalakrishnan by having the above limitation so to be able to build entity hierarchy from bid data; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,889,136 in view of Gopalakrishnan (US 2014/0046653).
Patent No. 11,889,136 discloses most of the claim except an entropy model.
Gopalakrishnan discloses an entropy model; see at least paragraphs 0061, 0066 and 0072.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 11,889,136 by the teachings of Gopalakrishnan by having the above limitation so to be able to build entity hierarchy from bid data; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,451,884 in view of Gopalakrishnan (US 2014/0046653).
Patent No. 11,451,884 discloses most of the claim except an entropy model.
Gopalakrishnan discloses an entropy model; see at least paragraphs 0061, 0066 and 0072.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 11,451,884 by the teachings of Gopalakrishnan by having the above limitation so to be able to build entity hierarchy from bid data; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,013 in view of Gopalakrishnan (US 2014/0046653).
Patent No. 10,945,013 discloses most of the claim except an entropy model.
Gopalakrishnan discloses an entropy model; see at least paragraphs 0061, 0066 and 0072.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 10,945,013 by the teachings of Gopalakrishnan by having the above limitation so to be able to build entity hierarchy from bid data; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,448,074 in view of Gopalakrishnan (US 2014/0046653).
Patent No. 10,448,074 discloses most of the claim except an entropy model.
Gopalakrishnan discloses an entropy model; see at least paragraphs 0061, 0066 and 0072.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 10,448,074 by the teachings of Gopalakrishnan by having the above limitation so to be able to build entity hierarchy from bid data; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights