Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-10 and 21 are a method; claims 11-13 and 15-20 are a system/apparatus and a non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, each claim 1-13 and 15-21, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1-13 and 15-21 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements as noted and analyzed under step 2A prong two and step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of “receiving… network data comprising a plurality of transactions conducted by a plurality of actual users and a plurality of actual resource providers… module that is …trained to classify a user as a simulated user or actual user; querying… a configuration data to obtain one or more configuration files comprising parameters for a simulation; obfuscating… the network data by introducing noise to the network data, wherein the noise is introduced to the network data to obfuscate selected 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; executing… a simulation using the plurality of simulated users and the plurality of simulated resource providers, and the one or more configuration files; and determining, in response to executing step, a plurality of simulated transactions conducted by the plurality of simulated users and the plurality of simulated resource providers.” which are mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
The phrase "Mental processes" applies to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. A-C.
The abstract elements of the claim are group as follows:
“receiving… network data comprising a plurality of transactions conducted by a plurality of actual users and a plurality of actual resource providers” - "Certain methods of organizing human activity" by simply transmitting
information from one party to another.
“querying… a configuration data to obtain one or more configuration files comprising parameters for a simulation” – “Certain methods of organizing human activity” by following rules and instructions to analyze data; “mental processes” by evaluating data.
“obfuscating… the network data by introducing noise to the network data, wherein the noise is introduced to the network data to obfuscate selected users” – “Certain methods of organizing human activity” by following rules and instructions to add more data to a core data.
“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” - "Mental processes" by observing a set of the plurality of actual users and making evaluations (“predictive model”) generating a plurality of simulated users.
“executing… a simulation using the plurality of simulated users and the plurality of simulated resource providers, and the one or more configuration files” - "Mental processes" by observing the previously generated plurality of simulated users and plurality of simulated resource providers (“predictive model”) generating some outcome (or evaluation/subsequent observation); “Certain methods of organizing human activity” by following rules and instructions to perform simulation analysis.
“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” - "Mental processes" by making a determination that a plurality of simulated transactions were conducted or not and "Certain methods of organizing human activity" by following rules (by comparing a consumer agent's satisfaction level to a pre-defined threshold; Paragraph 0100: “A set of recommendations can be determined for each consumer agent in the simulation based on the network data. If the consumer agent's satisfaction level for a particular segment (e.g., technology, food, household goods, etc.) falls below a pre-defined threshold, then the consumer agent can attempt to execute on a recommendation in a recommendation priority list (e.g., perform a transaction). The transaction may or may not be performed based on the consumer agent's and resource provider agent's availability.”)
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract recitation, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-13 and 15-21 at least are a computer, database, a computer-readable medium that stores an output, a computer comprising: 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 comprises an adversarial Al module that is configured with a support vector machine (SVM). Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computing device or components of a generic device. The additional elements, “A method comprising: …, by a computer,… (claim 1); A computer comprising: 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 comprising (claim 11); wherein the computer comprises an adversarial Al module that is configured with a support vector machine (SVM)”, are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2105.05(h)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1, 2, and their associated disclosure. Further, gathering data such as acquiring and displaying data are insignificant extra solution activity such as pre-solution activity e.g data gathering (performed by receiving/sending/transmitting/acquiring/extracting/parsing/etc.) and post-solution activity e.g. outputting/displaying-on-GUI/interface (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide simulation results of simulated transactions generated from actual transaction data transmitted over a generic network and store (output) results to a generic computing device, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it (using models), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of simulating transactions between simulated users and resource providers based on transaction data from actual users and resource providers is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1-13 and 15-21, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of simulating transactions between simulated users and resource providers based on transaction data from actual users and resource providers has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant extra solution activity such as pre-solution activity e.g. data gathering or post solution activity e.g. outputting to a generic computing device, the Examiner relies on as-filed disclosure, court cases, publication(s), and/or official notice below to demonstrate that such a way to gather data and/or output information in a technical environment is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here at least per claims 1 and 16, and transaction data is received from a second computing system];
(ii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." [similarly here as a post solution data or information is merely updated and stored (claim 9)].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 11/26/2025 have been fully considered and found to be unpersuasive to overcome all of the rejections. Details are provided below.
Arguments on rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicants argued that the claimed invention integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claimed invention at most provides an improvement to the abstract idea without any alteration or improvement to the additional elements/technology. “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)II). Further, applicant’s claimed invention does not pertain to the fact pattern of Example 47 claim 3.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 at (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