Ex parte Rangarajan

• Docket Number: Appeal 2022-004044,Application 16/025,066,Technology Center 3600
• Decision Date: 31 October 2023
• Parties: Ex parte BHARATH RANGARAJAN and ELIF TOKAR-ERDEMIR
• Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

1

Ex parte BHARATH RANGARAJAN and ELIF TOKAR-ERDEMIR

Appeal 2022-004044

Application 16/025,066

Technology Center 3600

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

October 31, 2023

FILING DATE: 07/02/2018

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and LARRY J. HUME Administrative Patent Judges.

DECISION ON APPEAL

DIXON ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant^[1] appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10-14 17, 18, 20-22, 24, 25, 27, 30-34, 36, 37, 39, and 40. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The claims are directed to a method and system for optimizing an item assortment of items for a particular space. Spec ¶ 1. The items in an item assortment are often selected to maximize the likelihood that any consumer viewing the item assortment will find a satisfactory item to select within a particular available space. Spec ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:

1. A system for optimizing an assortment of items, the system comprising:

a computing system including a processor, a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, and a content output device, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to:

receive, from a user interface presented on a computing device via a tools platform, a request for an optimized item assortment, the request comprising:

an initial item assortment comprising a first plurality of items,

an item universe comprising a second plurality of items that is different from the first plurality of items,

constraints to be applied in a multivariate analysis for optimizing the assortment of items, the constraints comprising:

at least two optimization goals, wherein a balance between the at least two optimization goals is selected by movement of a single selector on the user interface and the balance selected by the single selector prioritizes the at least two optimization goals for use in the multivariate analysis, and

at least two rules ranked by priority, wherein prioritization of the at least two optimization goals is maintained independent from the priority ranking of the at least two rules, a priority ranking of the optimization goals and the rules, and an output format; based on the movement of the single selector, determine item attribute data applicable to the balance between the at least two optimization goals;

determine an optimized item assortment size;

access item data for items within the initial item assortment and items within the item universe from one or more external data stores, the data comprising demand forecasting data, demand transfer data, and the item attribute data applicable to the balance between the at least two optimization goals determined based on the movement of the single selector, wherein the item data is automatically updated in real-time based on changes in item data from the one or more external data stores;

determine, at an assortment optimization engine, the optimized item assortment by performing the multivariate analysis by:

applying the at least two rules to the items in the initial item assortment and the selected item universe based on the item data, wherein higher ranking rules take priority over lower ranking rules when not all rules can be met,

continuously analyzing the item data for the items in the initial item assortment and the selected item universe to determine how well they match the at least two optimization goals,

ranking the items in the initial item assortment and the selected item universe based on how well they match the constraints and further based on prioritization of the at least two optimization goals, the priority ranking of the at least two rules, and the priority ranking of the optimization goals and the rules, and

eliminating items matching the constraints least to achieve the optimized item assortment size; and

output the optimized item assortment to the user computing device in the output format, wherein the output is an ordered list based on prioritization of the optimization goals and the rules and the list is ordered based on applying the at least two rules ranked by priority and the at least two optimization goals prioritized by the balance selected by the single selector to the items in the initial item assortment and the selected item universe based on the item data.

REFERENCES

The Examiner does not rely on any on references to reject the claims, but the Examiner cites the following references to show the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the slider bar for the data entry. Final Act. 3.

Chou et al. (US 2011/0087666) - Discloses the use of a slider bar to specify a target ratio between categories (Figs. 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8F; ¶¶40,44).

Nagy et al. (WO 2016/109637) - Discloses the use of a slider bar to specify a desired proportional amount between categories (¶ 28).

Fu et al. (US 2007/0101394) - Refers to slider bars as known and conventional GUI elements (¶ 65).

Gold (US 2012/0089679) - Refers to slider bars as being conventional in the graphical art (¶ 75).

Li et al. (US 2013/0066455) - Refers to a slider bar as a conventional graphical technique (¶ 124).

Rodney et al. (WO 2016/086077) - Describes a slider control as a conventional user selectable control (¶ 48).

REJECTION

The Examiner maintains the following rejection:

Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10-14, 17, 18, 20-22, 24, 25, 27, 30-34, 36, 37 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3-5.

OPINION 35 U.S.C. §101

Patent eligibility under § 101 is a question of law that may contain underlying issues of fact. "We review the [Examiner's] ultimate conclusion on patent eligibility de novo." Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); see also SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue of law that we review de novo."); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we review the Examiner's § 101 determinations concerning patent eligibility under this standard.

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. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'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. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, courts 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. Kappos, 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); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalkv. 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, 191 (1981)); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof 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))).

If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we turn 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-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks 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. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.

USPTO Revised Guidance

In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published revised guidance on the application of § 101 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.Reg. 50 (hereinafter "Guidance") (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01- 07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf).^[2] The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") now incorporates the Guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).^[3]

Under the Guidance (and MPEP § 2106), we first look to whether the claim recites:

(1) (see Step 2A-Prong 1) any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (see MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d));

...