DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
01. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
02. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 09/03/2025, 12/18/2025 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Priority
03. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
04. The drawings were received on 09/03/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Title
05. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
06. 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.
07. Claims 1 – 6 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of “a first learning unit”, “a second learning unit”, and “an estimation unit”. These limitations are not supplied with a specific definition, either in the specification nor the claims. It may be that Applicant is intending to invoke 35 USC 112(f), as these could be non-structural generic placeholders, but it is not clear. There is no supplied structure, material, and/or acts defined for these terms in the specification. If the Applicant wishes to have 35 USC 112(f) invoked, Examiner requests clarification as to where the specification supplies sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform the claimed functions. Alternatively, the claims could be amended to recite the specific structure for the these three claimed limitations, such as by including computer hardware, such as (hardware) processors and/or memories.
Claim 6 only recites the first learning unit and second learning unit, and is therefore rejected for the same rational as that supplied with respect to claim 1, minus the estimation unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
08. 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.
09. Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to estimating missing data, which amounts to an abstract idea, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Step 1: The claim (claim 1) recites a device which recites a series of acts for estimating missing data and a value of data. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong one: The claim (claim 1) recites the limitation of “estimating missing data”. This claimed limitation is a mathematical calculation in that a calculation is performed for determining what the missing data is. For example, this could be done by locating other data and performing a mathematical function on that data in order to generate the values for the missing data. Therefore, this claim limitation describes a purely mathematically calculated “statistic”. Additionally, there is not claim language that explains how the estimating is performed or what it is based off of, and appears that it could simply be a mental process, as a person could make a guess or inferences as to what missing data may be, potentially by looking at neighboring data or even simply making a guess.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In this instance, the claim does not include additional limitations that are not already analyzed under step 2A, prong one.
Step 2B: The claim limitations of claim one amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, but are instead limited to appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (abstract idea).
In this instance, the claims include estimation models that invoke the estimation calculations. However, these models are recited very generically, and do not add anything to the models that would explain that they are anything more than generic models that perform these calculations. In other words, a computing system would only require generic components to be able to implement their functionality. Additionally, the claims recite attributes of the users are used in the calculation of the estimations. However, these types of data are generic input values, and are not supplied a definition beyond any type of basic attribute and could be assigned to a user.
Claim 6 recites nearly the same embodiments of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rational provided above with respect to claim 1.
The same analysis is applied to dependent claims 2 – 5, because the limitations recite additional mental processes and/or mathematical calculations and do not integrate into a practical application. Further, they do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more.
Claim 2 includes the additional element the estimation coming from a feature quantity. However, this is understood to be data gathering. Specifying what type of data is obtained or compared, which in this instance is features, does not render the idea of estimating data any less abstract.
Claim 3 includes the additional element of using a vector. However, this is merely indicating the technological environment in which the judicial exception is applied to, and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 5 recite further embodiments for how the missing data is calculated. However, these do not add additional limitations that would amount the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
11. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
12. Claims 1 and 4 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori (JP-2022036713-A).
Consider claim 1, Mori discloses an estimation device comprising:
a first learning unit configured to construct a first estimation model for estimating missing data within first table data based on the first table data including first data indicating attributes of each user of a first user group (paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0015], a model is generated that is able to estimate missing data, wherein the missing data is for users of a first user group. Paragraphs [0019], [0020] disclose that the data is stored in databases, with the Figures showing that the databases are stored in a table format with rows and columns for the users and their attributes);
a second learning unit configured to construct a second estimation model for estimating missing data of a common user group within second table data based on the second table data having second data indicating attributes of each user of a second user group having partially the same common user group as the first user group and the first data for the common user group in the first table data (paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0015], [0018], [0028], a model is generated that is able to estimate missing data, wherein the data that is to be determined is based on groups of users, and can include determining attribute data for users that are part of one group and that are either part of a second group or not part of a second group. Paragraphs [0019], [0020] disclose that the data is stored in databases, with the Figures showing that the databases are stored in a table format with rows and columns for the users and their attributes);
an estimation unit configured to estimate a value of the second data for the first user group excluding the common user group based on the first estimation model and the second estimation model (paragraphs [0010], [0018], [0028], [0050], the values can be estimated based on a determination that a particular user is part of a first group, but not part of a second group, i.e. excluded from a common user group).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Mori discloses a device comprising:
the second estimation model estimates missing data within the first table data based on the first data and the second data for the common user group (paragraphs [0010], [0018], [0028], [0050], the missing data is estimated based on data that has a common attribute between the user groups).
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 1 above, Mori discloses a device comprising:
the second learning unit constructs the second estimation model based on the first table data and the second table data in which the missing data is complemented by the first estimation model (paragraphs [0002], [0050], [0080], the data is complemented based on the data that is stored for the different user groups).
Consider claim 6, Mori discloses an estimation device comprising:
a first learning unit configured to construct a first estimation model for estimating missing data within first table data based on the first table data including first data indicating attributes of each user of a first user group (paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0015], a model is generated that is able to estimate missing data, wherein the missing data is for users of a first user group. Paragraphs [0019], [0020] disclose that the data is stored in databases, with the Figures showing that the databases are stored in a table format with rows and columns for the users and their attributes);
a second learning unit configured to construct a second estimation model for estimating missing data of a common user group within second table data based on the second table data having second data indicating attributes of each user of a second user group having partially the same common user group as the first user group and the first data for the common user group in the first table data in which the missing data is complemented by the first estimation model (paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0015], [0018], [0028], a model is generated that is able to estimate missing data, wherein the data that is to be determined is based on groups of users, and can include determining attribute data for users that are part of one group and that are either part of a second group or not part of a second group. Paragraphs [0019], [0020] disclose that the data is stored in databases, with the Figures showing that the databases are stored in a table format with rows and columns for the users and their attributes).
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 2 and 3 have been examined and are deemed allowable over the prior art of record. However, these claims are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Additionally, these claims have 112 and 101 rejections that would need to be overcome as well, in order for allowable subject matter to be reached.
Reasons for the Indication of Potential Allowable Subject Matter
14. The prior arts of record do not teach or suggest that the estimation model uses a feature quantity for items in the table data and for each user in the user groups, as recited in claims 2 and 3. The prior art of record including the disclosures above neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thompson (US PGPub 2004/0210661) discloses a method of profiling user attributes so that missing information can be estimated. Users are placed into groups so that they can be matched up, which includes storing them in way that estimations can be made for missing data.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Christopher Raab whose telephone number is (571) 270-1090. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached on (571) 272-3906. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or 703-305-3028.
/CHRISTOPHER J RAAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights