Ex Parte Dhurandhar et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 14, 2019

14186071 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/186,071 02/21/2014
45773 7590 02/14/2019
WHITHAM, CURTIS & COOK, P.C.
11491 SUNSET HILLS ROAD, SUITE 340
RESTON, VA 20190
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Amit Dhurandhar
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
YOR920130984US 1;
00280949
1093
EXAMINER
REFAI, RAMSEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2019 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIT DHURANDHAR, MARKUS R. ETTL,
BRUCE C. GRAVES, and RAJESH K. RA VI 1
Appeal2017-010518
Application 14/186,071
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-5 and 9-19, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 International Business Machines, Inc. is identified as the real party in
interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2017-010518
Application 14/186,071
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to identifying fraud/risk
in procurement and providing numerical probabilities of illegal activity
(Spec. ,r 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method for identifying
fraudulent or risky entities in procurement, comprising the steps
of:
capturing both privately sourced data and publicly
sourced data with a server in communication with one or more
data input devices;
identifying anomalous events with a processor using said
privately sourced data, said anomalous events being selected
from the group consisting of statistical outliers and violations of
one or more of a plurality of business rules by an entity;
applying weights to each of said anomalous events, said
weights being in a probability range of O to 1;
generating at an output device a total confidence of
collusion by combination of a first probability of collusion and
a second probability of collusion, wherein
said first probability of collusion is determined
from said anomalous events for said entity and at least
one other entity,
said second probability of collusion is determined
from said publicly sourced data for said entity and said at
least one other entity, and
said combination is a weighted sum of said first
probability of collusion and said second probability of
collusion constrained to a probability range of Oto 1,
wherein said publicly sourced data includes social media
data.
2
Appeal2017-010518
Application 14/186,071
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite.
2. Claims 1-5 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 2
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 USC§ 112, second paragraph
The Appellants have not provided any substantive arguments in
regard to this rejection (see App. Br. 35). Accordingly, this rejection of
record is summarily sustained.
Re} ection under 3 5 US. C. § 101
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the claim is not directed to an abstract idea and is instead integrally tied to
social media and the Internet (App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 7). The Appellants
also argue that the cases that are cited by the Examiner in the determination
of the claim being directed to an abstract idea are not relevant to the claim at
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
( explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2017-010518
Application 14/186,071
issue here (App. Br. 21-26; Reply Br. 2-5). The Appellants argue the claim
requires more than a generic computer and cannot be done by a human
analog (App. Br. 26-30; Reply Br. 1-2, 5). The Appellants argue further
that the claim is not directed to a mathematical formula and instead is a
technological improvement (App. Br. 30-33; Reply Br. 6).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Final Action 2-5; Ans. 2---6).
We agree with the Examiner. An invention is patent eligible if it
claims a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted
35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS
Bankint'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice,
573 U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the
concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate
settlement risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)
("Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of
hedging, or protecting against risk .... ").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611 );
4
Appeal2017-010518
Application 14/186,071
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes ( Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192
( 1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267---68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment."
Id. (internal citation omitted) ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187
("It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or
mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving
of patent protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an '"inventive
concept"' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
5
Appeal2017-010518
Application 14/186,071
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( citation omitted). "A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea]."' Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
"[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
Here, the Examiner has determined that the claim is directed to the
concept of "generating total confidence of collusion to identify fraud/risk in
procurement by using privately sourced data and publically sourced data,
which is an idea 'of itself' and a certain method for organizing human
activity" and therefore an abstract idea (Ans. 2). We substantially agree
with the Examiner in this regard as claim 1 is directed to the steps of
capturing data, identifying anomalous events, applying weights to the
anomalous events, and generating a combination of a weighted sum of
probabilities of collusion. These steps are directed to the concept of
organizing data and applying a mathematical formula to determine a
probability of collusion and these steps are a method of organizing human
activities or an idea in itself in applying the mathematical probabilities to the
data. In FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc. 839 F.3d 1089, 1092-
94 (Fed. Cir. 2016), ways to detect fraud and misuse by identifying unusual
patterns in users' access to sensitive data and claims directed to "collecting
and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when
misuse is detected" were held to be directed to an abstract idea. See Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the
collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea). Further, "a process
6
Appeal2017-010518
Application 14/186,071
that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to
generate additional information is not patent eligible." Digitech Image
Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2014).
The Appellants have for example cited to Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), to show that the claim is not abstract,
but the claims in that case were not similar in scope to those here and were
in contrast directed to a self-referential data table. The Appellants have also
for example cited to McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d
1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), but the claims in that case are distinguished from this
case in being directed to rules for lip sync and facial expression animation.
Thus, we consider the claim to be directed to an abstract idea as
identified above.
Turning to the second step of the second step of the Alice and Mayo
framework, we determine that the claim does not contain an inventive
concept sufficient to "transform" the abstract nature of the claim into a
patent-eligible application. The claims do not improve computer
functionality, improve another field or technology, utilize a particular
machine, or effect a physical transformation. Rather, we determine that
nothing in the claims imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception,
such that the claims are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the
judicial exception.
Further, in claim 1, the server merely gathers the social media data.
Here, considering the elements of the claim both individually and as "an
ordered combination" the functions performed by the computer system at
each step of the process are purely conventional. Each step of the claimed
7
Appeal2017-010518
Application 14/186,071
method does no more than require a generic computer to perform a generic
computer function. The Specification at paragraphs 86-88 for example
describes using conventional computer components in a conventional
manner.
For these above reasons, the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent
claims, which are directed to similar subject matter, is sustained. Claim 9
and its dependent claims are directed to similar subject matter and the
rejection of these claims is sustained for these same reasons given above as
well.
We reach the same conclusion as to independent system claim 14 and
its dependent claims. Here, as in Alice, "the system claims are no different
from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract
idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful
of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea."
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea 'while adding the words "apply it'" is not enough for
patent eligibility." Id. at 223 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.
8
Appeal2017-010518
Application 14/186,071
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5 and 9-19 are sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9