Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 06/29/2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 7 and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 24-25 have been added.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-18, and 20-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/01/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 06/29/2026 have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following non-final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 8-11 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered but are found not persuasive and are moot in view of the amended rejection that may be found starting on page 6 of this non-final office action.
On pages 9-10 of the Response, the Applicant argues “Similar to the claims at issue in Ex parte Desjardins, the present claims recite “generating a causal model”, and “using the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing”. The set of features from the causal model is then used to train the selected predictive model […] Improving the accuracy of the predictions of the ML models, which is the primary function of the ML models, is clearly an improvement of ML model technology”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims recite a technical improvement to machine learning technology. As currently drafted, the independent claims similarly recite steps for “generating a causal model comprising an estimate of a causal effect of a hotel room price on a demand of the hotel room and using the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality such that a human using mental steps would be capable of performing them. A human, with the aid of pen and paper, is capable of using mental analysis and judgement to construct/”generate” a mathematical model (i.e., a causal model) for an intended purpose. Furthermore, these limitations directed towards generating mathematical models (i.e., the causal model) and utilizing the mathematical models to produce a result recite the concepts of mathematical relationships and calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Furthermore, the independent claim limitations directed towards “selecting and training one type of predive model from a plurality of different types of predictive models based at least on the causal model” and a “selected predictive model trained with the determined set of features from the causal model” are recited at a high level of generality such that they merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions to apply the abstract idea. Moreover, the claims merely suggest steps for mapping the price of the hotel room to the demand of the hotel room based on an output estimate from the selected type of predictive model using the historical hotel room reservation data. The claim does not provide any technical details regarding how the “output estimate” is generated by the predictive model- only that an “output estimate” is utilized to produce a result (i.e., mapping the price based on the output estimate). A human using mental steps would be capable of observing a result (i.e., the output estimate) from a predictive model, and utilize the observed/collected information to analyze and map the price of the hotel room to the demand of the hotel room with the aid of pen and paper. As such, the claims do not demonstrate or reflect an improvement to machine learning technology because the claims merely recite, at most, generic computer instructions for training a predictive model, and the implementation of the predictive model amounts to no more than providing a generic result to perform the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the independent claim limitations directed towards “blocking all non-causal flow of information by controlling for appropriate variable to identify confounders and adjusting for each level of the identified confounders automatically by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder” do not provide additional elements that reflect an improvement to technology. The claim steps for identifying confounders and adjusting for each level of the identified confounders by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder recite concepts of mental processes (i.e., with the aid of pen and paper) and mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical calculations and relationships). The steps for “blocking all non-causal flow of information by controlling for appropriate variables” and steps for “automatically” performing the mathematical calculations are recited at a high level of generality such that they merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented.
The Examiner further notes “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
On page 10 of the Response, the Applicant submits “Claims 21-23 add additional elements regarding a specific cloud infrastructure used to implement embodiments of the invention. These additional elements are not conventional elements, and consistent with Berkheimer v. HP Inc. […] should be considered another reason that the claims are subject matter eligible”.
Claims 21-23 recite a “cloud infrastructure comprising: a first virtual cloud network (VCN) comprising a local peering gateway (LPG) communicatively coupled to a secure shell (SSH) VCN via the LPG; wherein the LPG is contained in a control plane VCN and the SSH VCN is communicatively coupled to a data plane VCN”. These additional elements are considered to serve as generic computer tools and components that are merely added after the fact to apply the abstract idea. The Examiner notes ““simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”. MPEP 2106.05 (f). Furthermore, these additional elements are considered to be merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Response to Prior Art Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 11-13 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are considered persuasive.
On pages 11-13 of the Response, the Applicant notes that the limitations of claims 7 and 15, which were previously identified as overcoming the prior art of record, have been added to the independent claims. Upon further search and consideration of the amended claims, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are found to overcome the prior art of record. A detailed explanation for this finding has been provided in the Examiner Notes section starting on page 21 herein.
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 1-6, 9-14, 17-18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-6 and 21 are directed to a process (“a method”), claims 9-14 and 22 are directed to a manufacture (“a non-transitory computer readable medium”), and claims 17-18, 20, and 23-25 are directed to a machine (“a hotel room price optimization system”). Thus, claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-18, and 20-25 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-18, and 20-25, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Generating a causal model comprising an estimate of a causal effect of a hotel room price on a demand of the hotel room and using the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing;
Receiving historical hotel room reservation data;
Mapping the price of the hotel room to the demand of the hotel room based on an output estimate from the selected type of predictive model using the historical hotel room reservation data […].
Wherein the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing comprises […] identify confounders and adjusting for each level of the identified confounders […] by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder.
Therefore, claims 1 and 2-6 and 21, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of estimating causal effects of market prices on market demand for a particular service/commodity (i.e., hotel rooms) and mapping market prices to market demand – which is the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices, business relations, and marketing behaviors. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0005] and ¶ [0017]-¶ [0018]. Furthermore, the limitations identified above recite concepts of organizing information (“generating a causal model comprising an estimate of a causal effect of a hotel room price on a demand of the hotel room and using the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing”), collecting information (“receiving historical hotel room reservation data”), and analyzing information (“mapping the price of the hotel room to the demand of the hotel room based on an output estimate from the selected type of predictive model using the historical hotel room reservation data”, “wherein using the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing comprises […] identify[ing] confounders and adjusting for each level of the identified confounders […] by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder”) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. Furthermore, the limitations directed towards “generating a causal model comprising an estimate of a causal effect of a hotel room price on a demand of the hotel room and using the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing”, “mapping the price of the hotel room to the demand of the hotel room based on an output estimate from the selected type of predictive model using the historical hotel room reservation data”, and “adjusting for each level of the identified confounders […] by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder” recite concepts of mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations - which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include steps for “selecting and training one type of predictive model from a plurality of different types of predictive models based at least on the causal model”, a “selected predictive model trained with the determined set of features from the determined set of features from the causal model”, steps for “blocking all non-causal flow of information by controlling for appropriate variables”, and steps for “automatically” performing the mathematical calculations. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 9, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Generating a causal model comprising an estimate of a causal effect of a hotel room price on a demand of the hotel room and using the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing;
Receiving historical hotel room reservation data;
Mapping the price of the hotel room to the demand of the hotel room based on an output estimate from the selected type of predictive model using the historical hotel room reservation data;
Wherein the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing comprises […] identify confounders and adjusting for each level of the identified confounders […] by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder.
Therefore, claims 9 and 10-14, 22, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 9 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of estimating causal effects of market prices on market demand for a particular service/commodity (i.e., hotel rooms) and mapping market prices to market demand – which is the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices, business relations, and marketing behaviors. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0005] and ¶ [0017]-¶ [0018]. Furthermore, the limitations identified above recite concepts of organizing information (“generating a causal model comprising an estimate of a causal effect of a hotel room price on a demand of the hotel room and using the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing”), collecting information (“receiving historical hotel room reservation data”), and analyzing information (“mapping the price of the hotel room to the demand of the hotel room based on an output estimate from the selected type of predictive model using the historical hotel room reservation data”, “wherein using the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing comprises […] identify[ing] confounders and adjusting for each level of the identified confounders […] by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder”) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. Furthermore, the limitations directed towards “generating a causal model comprising an estimate of a causal effect of a hotel room price on a demand of the hotel room and using the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing”, “mapping the price of the hotel room to the demand of the hotel room based on an output estimate from the selected type of predictive model using the historical hotel room reservation data”, and “adjusting for each level of the identified confounders […] by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder” recite concepts of mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations - which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the processor to optimize hotel room pricing”, steps for “selecting and training one type of predictive model from a plurality of different types of predictive models based at least on the causal model”, a “selected predictive model trained with the determined set of features from the determined set of features from the causal model”, steps for “blocking all non-causal flow of information by controlling for appropriate variables”, and steps for “automatically” performing the mathematical calculations. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 17, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
A causal model comprising an estimate of a causal effect of a hotel room price on a demand of the hotel room;
A plurality of different types of predictive models;
Use the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing;
A plurality of predictive models;
Receive historical hotel room reservation data;
Map the price of the hotel room on the demand of the hotel room based on an output estimate from the selected type of predictive model using the historical hotel room reservation data;
Wherein the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing comprises […] identify confounders and adjusting for each level of the identified confounders […] by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder.
Therefore, claims 17 and 18, 20, 23-25, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 17 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of estimating causal effects of market prices on market demand for a particular service/commodity (i.e., hotel rooms) and mapping market prices to market demand – which is the abstract idea of fundamental economic practices, business relations, and marketing behaviors. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0005] and ¶ [0017]-¶ [0018]. Furthermore, the limitations identified above recite concepts of collecting information (“receiving historical hotel room reservation data”), and analyzing information ( “use the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing”, “map the price of the hotel room to the demand of the hotel room based on an output estimate from the selected type of predictive model using the historical hotel room reservation data”, “wherein using the causal model for determining a set of features for determining hotel room pricing comprises […] identify[ing] confounders and adjusting for each level of the identified confounders […] by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder”) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. Furthermore, the limitations directed towards “a causal model comprising an estimate of a causal effect of a hotel room price on a demand of the hotel room”, “a plurality of different types of predictive models”, “map[ping] the price of the hotel room to the demand of the hotel room based on an output estimate from the selected type of predictive model using the historical hotel room reservation data”, and “adjusting for each level of the identified confounders […] by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder” recite concepts of mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations - which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include “one or more processors”, steps for “select[ing] and train[ing] one of the plurality of different types of predictive models based at least on the causal model”, a “selected predictive model trained with the determined set of features from the determined set of features from the causal model”, steps for “blocking all non-causal flow of information by controlling for appropriate variables”, and steps for “automatically” performing the mathematical calculations. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites steps for embedding the mapping into a revenue-maximizing optimization problem and determining an optimal set of prices. Thus, claim 2 further describes the abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and fundamental economic practices. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 3 further describes providing an optimal set of prices as selectable prices and receiving a selection of one of the optimal set of prices in connection with a hotel room reservation selection. Thus, claim 3 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of marketing, sales activities, and business relations.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “user interface”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 4 recites the same abstract idea as claims 1-3, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “in response to the selection, refining and retraining the causal model and the predictive model”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 5 further describes the use of linear regression model and a random forest model. Thus, claim 5 further describes the abstract idea of mathematical equations and mathematical calculations.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “double ML model”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 6 further defines the optimal prices as comprising optimal prices for a plurality of classes of hotel rooms. Thus, claim 6 further describes the abstract ideas of mental processes, commercial interactions, mathematical calculations, and mathematical relationships. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 1-2 from which the claim depends.
Claim 10 recites steps for embedding the mapping into a revenue-maximizing optimization problem and determining an optimal set of prices. Thus, claim 10 further describes the abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and fundamental economic practices. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 9 from which the claim depends.
Claim 11 further describes providing an optimal set of prices as selectable prices and receiving a selection of one of the optimal set of prices in connection with a hotel room reservation selection. Thus, claim 11 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of marketing, sales activities, and business relations.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “user interface”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 12 recites the same abstract idea as claims 9-11, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “in response to the selection, refining and retraining the causal model and the predictive model”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 13 further describes the use of linear regression model and a random forest model. Thus, claim 13 further describes the abstract idea of mathematical equations and mathematical calculations.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “double ML model”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 14 further defines the optimal prices as comprising optimal prices for a plurality of classes of hotel rooms. Thus, claim 14 further describes the abstract ideas of mental processes, commercial interactions, mathematical calculations, and mathematical relationships. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 9-10 from which the claim depends.
Claim 18 recites steps for embedding the mapping into a revenue-maximizing optimization problem and determining an optimal set of prices. Thus, claim 18 further describes the abstract ideas of mental processes, commercial interactions, mathematical calculations, and mathematical relationships. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 9 from which the claim depends.
Claim 20 recites the same abstract idea as claims 17-19, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “in response to the selection, refine and retrain the causal model and the predictive model”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 21 recites the same abstract idea as claims 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “a cloud infrastructure comprising: a first virtual cloud network (VCN) comprising a local peering gateway (LPG) communicatively coupled to a secure shell (SSH) VCN via the LPG; wherein the LPG is contained in a control plane VCN and the SSH VCN is communicatively coupled to a data plane VCN”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these additional elements are considered to be merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components, and are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 22 recites the same abstract idea as claims 9, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “a cloud infrastructure comprising: a first virtual cloud network (VCN) comprising a local peering gateway (LPG) communicatively coupled to a secure shell (SSH) VCN via the LPG; wherein the LPG is contained in a control plane VCN and the SSH VCN is communicatively coupled to a data plane VCN”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these additional elements are considered to be merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components, and are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 23 recites the same abstract idea as claims 17, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “a cloud infrastructure comprising: a first virtual cloud network (VCN) comprising a local peering gateway (LPG) communicatively coupled to a secure shell (SSH) VCN via the LPG; wherein the LPG is contained in a control plane VCN and the SSH VCN is communicatively coupled to a data plane VCN”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these additional elements are considered to be merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components, and are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 24 further describes embedding the mapping into a revenue-maximizing optimization problem and determining an optimal set of prices. Thus, claim 24 further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and fundamental economic practices. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 17 from which the claim depends.
Claim 25 further describes the use of linear regression model and a random forest model. Thus, claim 25 further describes the abstract idea of mathematical equations and mathematical calculations.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “double ML model”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Examiner Notes
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been found to overcome the cited art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of claims 1, 9, and 17 being found to overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, claims 2-6, 10-14, 18, and 19-25, by virtue of dependence, recite the same limitations as claims 1, 9, and 17 which have been found to overcome the prior art of record. None of the prior art of record, taken individual or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings or suggestions of the prior art of record without the benefit of hindsight.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention are as follows:
Reddy U.S. Patent No. 10,366,362;
Cho et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0117998;
Feyzollahi et al. “Double/Debiased Machine Learning for Economists: Practice Guidelines,
Best Practices, and Common Pitfalls” (2024);
Reddy discloses a system configured to formulate a causal model that represents a relationship between period outcome variables (i.e., a demand for a product or service) and causal variables (i.e., a price of the product or service). A variation of features and attributes may be assessed by the causal model. Furthermore, the causal model may be implemented by any suitable optimization algorithm(s), such as implicitly/explicitly trained schemes, neural networks, Bayesian belief networks, fuzzy logic, etc. Accordingly, the system may develop pricing strategies for the products/services in order to maximize objectives (e.g., sales or profit targets). Reddy, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17. In particular, Reddy does not teach blocking all non-causal flow of information by controlling for appropriate variables to identify confounders, and adjusting for each level of the identified confounders automatically by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder.
Cho discloses a system configured to model demand and pricing for hotel rooms. The system receives historical reservation data regarding a plurality of previous guests, including a plurality of attributes. The system further generates a plurality of distinct clusters based on the attributes, and builds a model for each of the distinct clusters, the model predicting a probability of a guest selecting a certain room category and including a plurality of variables corresponding to the attributes. The system considers k types of hotel rooms with k different prices. As such, the system may determine optimal pricing of hotel rooms using the model parameters and personalized pricing algorithms. Cho, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17. In particular, Cho does not teach blocking all non-causal flow of information by controlling for appropriate variables to identify confounders, and adjusting for each level of the identified confounders automatically by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder.
Feyzollahi discloses methods for accurately quantifying the extent of change in demand in response to price fluctuations, such as to estimate the impact of a specific variable (X) on an outcome of interest (Y). A double/debiased machine learning (DML) model is utilized as the general framework for conducting causal interference. The model includes a set of covariates (W) as control variables. The disclosure addresses the question of identifying the most suitable model for the estimation steps, where the supervised and unsupervised models include linear regression models and random tree-based models. Feyzollahi, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17. In particular, Feyzollahi does not teach blocking all non-causal flow of information by controlling for appropriate variables to identify confounders, and adjusting for each level of the identified confounders automatically by fitting a regression hyperplane on a price and a corresponding identified confounder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights