DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-A/A or A/A Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1–7) and a machine (claims 8-20), where the machine is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of determining allocations of assets by:
receiving,…, a data packet comprising a set of electronic images associated with an asset;
executing,…, a machine learning model to ingest the set of electronic images and generate a set of attributes, wherein the machine learning model is configured to, for each electronic image in the set of electronic images:
identify a segment of the asset associated with the electronic image;
generate, based on the electronic image, an attribute comprising a description of quality of the segment of the asset; and
determine, based on the attribute, whether the electronic image is associated a subset of the electronic images;
aggregating the set of attributes and an indication of the subset with user input about the asset to generate evaluation data;
executing a computer model to determine an allocation of the asset to a class of a set of classes based on the evaluation data;
determining,…, based on the class, a task of the class to be executed; and
routing,…, the task and the data packet to an,…, associated with the task.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., determining allocations of assets).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “device” and “processor,” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0008] of the specification). Independent claims 8 and 15 are nearly identical to claim 1 so the same analysis applies to this claim as well.
Dependent claims 2–7, 9-14, and 16–20 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe generating an output and providing this output to a large language model to generate an attribute. Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe what the attribute comprises (“a deficiency of the asset…”). Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe identifying an APLI endpoint and then transmitting an API call to triggers a set of actions. Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe receiving a selection of the task and accessing the device to the API. Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe generating a graphical user interface displaying the allocation of the asset to the specific class and displaying this on a user device. Dependent claims 7 and 14 are substantially similar and recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as they describe that the GUI comprises an allocation value generated by the computer model based on the evaluation data.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The Examiner considers the following reference pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
Rai et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 12,518,134) teaches a systems and methods for implementing a machine learning framework to generate a recommendation of digital assets from a digital image. Although the invention in Rai describes the use of a determining image segments from a digital image, it fails to disclose the following limitations of the current invention:
“determine, based on the attribute, whether the electronic image is associated a subset of the electronic images;
aggregating the set of attributes and an indication of the subset with user input about the asset to generate evaluation data;
executing a computer model to determine an allocation of the asset to a class of a set of classes based on the evaluation data;
determining, by the at least one processor, based on the class, a task of the class to be executed; and
routing, by the at least one processor, the task and the data packet to an electronic computing device associated with the task.”
However, Rai does not teach that a set of attributes are aggregated to then generate an evaluation. Then, a determination of an allocation of assets to a class of a set of classes based on the evaluation data is made and the task and data are routed to an electronic device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to AMIT PATEL whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner
Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights