SAS Institute Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 3, 2020

2019002572 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/849,870 12/21/2017 Yonggang Yao 04500-0056-02 1074
114605 7590 12/03/2020
Bell & Manning, LLC
2801 West Beltline Hwy.
Ste. 210
Madison, WI 53713
EXAMINER
CALDWELL, ANDREW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2182
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
cbell@bellmanning.com
docketing@bellmanning.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONGGANG YAO
Appeal 2019-002572
Application 15/849,870
Technology Center 2100
BeforeROBERT E. NAPPI, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAS Institute Inc. Appeal
Brief 3, filed December 12, 2018 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2019-002572
Application 15/849,870

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns a system for fast quantile regression
computation. See Specification ¶¶ 2–7, filed December 21, 2017. Claim 1
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having
stored thereon computer-readable instructions that when
executed by a computing device cause the computing device to:
read a dataset that includes a plurality of observation
vectors, wherein each observation vector includes a response
variable value and an explanatory vector of a plurality of
explanatory variable values;
identify a plurality of quantile level values;
recursively perform,
dividing the read dataset into subsets of the plurality
of observation vectors;
computing a lower counterweight vector and an
upper counterweight vector for each of the subsets; and
fitting a quantile regression solver to each of the
subsets using the computed lower counterweight vector
associated with each subset of the subsets and the
computed upper counterweight vector associated with
each subset of the subsets to describe a quantile function
for the response variable values for a selected quantile
level of the identified plurality of quantile level values;
and
for each selected quantile level, output a parameter
estimate vector and a dual solution vector that describe the
quantile function in association with the selected quantile level
for use in predicting a new quantile value of a response variable
for a new explanatory vector not read from the dataset.
Appeal Br. 62.
Appeal 2019-002572
Application 15/849,870

3
REJECTION
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
1–30 101 Eligibility
DISCUSSION
The Examiner determined that claims 1–30 “are directed to the
abstract idea of performing a quantile regression computation on a dataset,
which is defined by mathematical relationships.” Final Office Action 2,
mailed July 20, 2018 (Final Act.). The Examiner determined that the
additional elements recited in these claims—a computing device, a non-
transitory computer-readable medium, a user interface, and a processor—
“do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea” because the
elements are “[g]eneric computer components recited as performing generic
computer functions that are well-understood, routine[,] and conventional
activities.” Final Act. 3. Based on these determinations, the Examiner
rejected claims 1–30 under § 101. See Final Act. 2–3.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because, among other
things, the Examiner provided “no support . . . for the statement that the
claims are directed to well-understood, routine, or conventional activities,”
Appeal Br. 32–33, let alone the support required by the guidance issued by
the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Appeal Br. 49–51.
Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Under Office
guidance, “[w]hen making a determination whether the additional elements
in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, [an]
examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood,
routine, conventional activity.” Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
§ 2106.05(d)(I) (9th ed. latest rev. June 2020) (MPEP). An examiner “should
Appeal 2019-002572
Application 15/849,870

4
not assert that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well-
understood, routine, or conventional unless the examiner finds, and
expressly supports the rejection in writing [in] one or more” of four
specified ways. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III). Those ways include citing (i) “an
express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant
during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine,
conventional nature of the additional element(s)”; (ii) “one or more of the
court decisions . . . noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature
of the additional element(s)”; and (iii) “a publication that demonstrates the
well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).”
MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III). The specified ways also include providing (iv) “[a]
statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood,
routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” MPEP
§ 2106.07(a)(III).
Here, the Examiner has not provided the evidence required to support
the finding that the identified additional elements perform well-understood,
routine, and conventional activities. The Examiner has not cited any
evidence to support this finding, much less the evidence required by Office
guidance. See, e.g., Final Act. 3. Thus, while it may well be the case that the
recited additional elements perform well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities, on this record, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejection. Should prosecution continue, the Examiner may provide the
evidence necessary to support this finding.

Appeal 2019-002572
Application 15/849,870

5
CONCLUSION
Claims 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–30 101 Eligibility 1–30

REVERSED