DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a non-final action in response to amendments filed on 4/10/2026. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-13 and 15-21 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without a practical application and without providing significantly more.
Regarding Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are directed to a method (i.e., process) and a system (i.e., apparatus/machine); accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.04, Claims 1 and 11 recite specifically the abstract idea of receiving network data comprising a plurality of transactions conducted by a plurality of actual users and a plurality of actual resource providers, wherein the computer comprises an adversarial module that is trained to classify a user as a simulated user or actual user; querying a configuration database to obtain one or more configuration files comprising parameters for a simulation; obfuscating the network data comprising the plurality of transactions conducted by the plurality of actual users and the plurality of actual resource providers by introducing noise to the network data to obfuscate selected actual users; generating a plurality of simulated users, each simulated user based upon a set of the plurality of actual users; generating a plurality of simulated resource providers, each simulated resource provider based upon at least one actual resource provider of the plurality of actual resource providers; executing the simulation using the plurality of simulated users that are based upon the obfuscated selected actual users, the plurality of simulated resource providers, and the one or more configuration files; and determining, in response to the executing the simulation, a plurality of simulated transactions conducted by the plurality of simulated users and the plurality of simulated resource providers, wherein the simulation comprises a plurality of epochs, and wherein the executing the simulation further comprises determining a plurality of recommendations for each epoch of the simulation for each simulated user of the plurality of simulated users; which include mental processes (evaluating and analyzing actual transaction data to make a judgement/opinion on simulated/forecasted transactions (i.e., demand)); and certain methods of organizing human activities (simulating/forecasting transactions (i.e., demand)), based on commercial and legal interactions (simulating/forecasting sales behavior) and managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following rules and instructions for simulating/forecasting transactions/sales behavior). Claims 2-10, 12-13, and 15-21 are directed to performing the abstract idea of claim 1 and 11 with further details provided for the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 1 and 11. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05, while the claims 1-13 and 15-21 recite additional elements which are hardware or software elements, such as a computer, AI, support vector machine (SVM), database, a processor; and a computer-readable medium coupled to the processor, the computer-readable medium comprising code executable by the processor for implementing a method, wherein the computer is a simulation computer, and wherein the computer-readable medium comprises: an agent creation module; a simulation module; and an adversarial AI module, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instructions of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Regarding Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.05, while the claims 1-13 and 15-21 recite additional elements which are hardware or software elements, such as a computer, AI, support vector machine (SVM), database, a processor; and a computer-readable medium coupled to the processor, the computer-readable medium comprising code executable by the processor for implementing a method, wherein the computer is a simulation computer, and wherein the computer-readable medium comprises: an agent creation module; a simulation module; and an adversarial AI module, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instructions of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-13 and 15-21 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to arguments
Arguments on claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicants argued that the claims do not recite mental processes. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s invention is directed to simulating (i.e., forecasting) transactions based on actual transaction data wherein the actual data is modified with additional data for noise. In smaller scale, this algorithmic process can be performed in human mind. Further, the process can be performed with pen and a paper. Therefore, the claimed invention clearly includes mental processes.
Applicants argued that the claims include a practical application based on improvement to technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Additional limitations, considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea, are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instructions of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Applicants argued that the claims include significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Additional limitations, considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea, are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instructions of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Conclusion
Closest prior art to the invention includes:
Ezawa et al. (U.S Patent No. 5,949,045), Adjaoute (Pub. No.: US 2015/0046332), Hartnell (Pub. No.: US 2010/0217650), Bouron et al. (Pub. No.: US 2003/0154092), and Fables (Pub. No.: US 2008/0027692) as applied in the previous rejections.
None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches the claimed invention, wherein the novelty is in the combination of all limitations and not in a single limitation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights