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 .
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18 and 20 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 4th, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and its dependent claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Remove the open bracket from the limitation “…using[a Bayesian prediction model…” in claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-8, filed March 4th, 2026, with respect to claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-18, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-18, and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive for the following reasons:
35 U.S.C 101:
Response to limitations not reciting a mental process.
Applicant argues that the claims similar to PEG Example 39, cannot practically be performed in the human mind because they recite specific operations for training a machine-learning model, and thus does not recite a mental process (Page 1 of Remarks). The argument has been considered, but is not persuasive. PEG Example 39 was eligible because it had no judicial exceptions and that the instant independent claims do.
The amended claim steps of determining a risk indicator from predictor variables, determining correlations between variables, assigning predictive scores, and refining a dataset based on a comparison and threshold are all forms of observation, evaluation, and judgement which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Response to the claims being directed to improvements in machine learning.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to improvements in machine learning technology similar to those in Ex Parte Desjardins and Enfish, and therefore integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
In Enfish, the claims were found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because they were directed to a specific database structure that improved how computers store and retrieve data, resulting in faster searches and more efficient memory usage. In contrast, the amended claims use a generic Bayesian prediction model as a tool to perform abstract evaluations of data and do not recite specific improvement to computer functionality or a new data structure. The amended steps do not change how the model or the computer functionally operates, and instead applies conventional techniques to input data.
In Ex Parte Desjardins, the claims were found eligible because they recited specific steps involved in the training itself, which provided the improvement. In contrast, the amended claims recite generalized steps of analyzing data such as determining correlations, assigning predictive scores, and removing variables based on comparisons which provides abstract ideas rather than a specific technological improvement to the functioning of the model itself.
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 1-4, 6-12, and 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of
processes.
Step2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
determining… a risk indicator for the target entity from predictor variables associated with the target entity: This limitation recites a mental process because it involves evaluating information about a target entity and determining a risk based on the predictor variables.
determining a correlation between a first predictor variable and a second predictor variable in the plurality of predictor variables: This limitation is a limitation is a mental process because it involves comparing two variables based on their similarity.
determining a first predictive score for the first predictor variable and a second predictive score for the second predictor variable: This limitation recites a mental process because it involves the determination scores for the first and second predictor variables, which involves mental judgement to determine a score for a variable.
generating a refined training dataset by removing the first predictor variable from the plurality of predictor variables based at least in part on the correlation being greater than a threshold value of correlation, and further based at least in part on a comparison between the first predictive score and the second predictive score: This limitation is a mental process because it involves selecting or removing information from a dataset based on a comparison and threshold evaluation.
and generating an access permission key based on a value of the risk indicator: This limitation recites a mental process because it involves generating a value based on a previously determined risk indicator.
Step2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
additional elements are as follows:
receiving, from a user computing system, a risk assessment query for a target entity: Mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
one or more processing devices performing operations comprising… using a Bayesian prediction model… wherein the Bayesian prediction model determines the risk indicator based on a set of parameters associated with the Bayesian prediction model that are calculated based on an initial training dataset and an additional training dataset, and wherein the Bayesian prediction model is configured by performing operations comprising: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
receiving the initial training dataset for the Bayesian prediction model, the initial training dataset comprising a plurality of training records and a plurality of predictor variables: Mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
generating the Bayesian prediction model by at least calculating the set of parameters based on the refined training dataset: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
receiving the additional training dataset for the Bayesian prediction model, the additional training dataset containing an additional predictor variable or an additional training record: Mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
updating the Bayesian prediction model by updating the set of parameters based on the set of parameters and the additional training dataset: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and transmitting, to a remote computing device, a responsive message including at least the risk indicator and the access permission key for use in controlling access of the target entity to one or more interactive computing environments: Insignificant extra-solution as the limitation amounts to necessary data outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
receiving, from a user computing system, a risk assessment query for a target entity: The additional element of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receiving steps amounts to no more than mere data gathering. This element amounts to receiving data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II (i). This cannot provide an inventive concept.
one or more processing devices performing operations comprising… using a Bayesian prediction model… wherein the Bayesian prediction model determines the risk indicator based on a set of parameters associated with the Bayesian prediction model that are calculated based on an initial training dataset and an additional training dataset, and wherein the Bayesian prediction model is configured by performing operations comprising: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and cannot provide inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
receiving the initial training dataset for the Bayesian prediction model, the initial training dataset comprising a plurality of training records and a plurality of predictor variables: The additional element of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receiving steps amounts to no more than mere data gathering. This element amounts to receiving data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II (i). This cannot provide an inventive concept.
generating the Bayesian prediction model by at least calculating the set of parameters based on the refined training dataset: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and cannot provide inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
receiving the additional training dataset for the Bayesian prediction model, the additional training dataset containing an additional predictor variable or an additional training record: The additional element of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receiving steps amounts to no more than mere data gathering. This element amounts to receiving data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II (i). This cannot provide an inventive concept.
updating the Bayesian prediction model by updating the set of parameters based on the set of parameters and the additional training dataset: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and cannot provide inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and transmitting, to a remote computing device, a responsive message including at least the risk indicator and the access permission key for use in controlling access of the target entity to one or more interactive computing environments: Insignificant extra-solution as the limitation amounts to necessary data outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). This falls under Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional activity -see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(vi).
The elements in combination as an ordered whole still do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., the abstract ideas of mental processes of evaluating predictor variables and determining a risk indicator). The claim merely describes a process of applying mental processes (determining correlations between predictor variables, determining predictive scores, comparing values, and removing variables from a dataset based on threshold and score comparisons) to analyze data and generate a risk indicator. The remaining steps recite conventional data processing operations such as receiving datasets, generating and updating a Bayesian prediction model based on calculated parameters, and transmitting a message. These elements merely implement the abstract idea on generic computer components and represent routine data gathering, analysis, and output operations without improving the functioning of a computer or technological field.
Therefore, the claim as a whole remains focused on the abstract idea and fails Step 2B of the eligibility
analysis.
Claim 2
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
the set of parameters comprise a set of probabilities; the set of probabilities comprises a likelihood probability for a predictor variable of the plurality of predictor variables indicating a conditional probability of the predictor variable conditioned on a value of the risk indicator and a prior probability indicating a probability of the risk indicator taking the value: This limitation recites a mathematical concept because it involves using a statistical equations for generating the probabilities.
and determining the risk indicator based on the set of parameters comprises calculating a posterior probability from the set of probabilities: This limitation recites a mental process because it involves the determination of a risk based on the calculated posterior probability.
Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim is ineligible.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply
an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 3
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
the additional training dataset comprises the additional predictor variable for each of the plurality of training records, and wherein updating the set of parameters comprises generating additional probabilities by calculating a likelihood probability for the additional predictor variable and generating an additional prior probability by taking a value of the posterior probability: This limitation recites a mathematical concept because it involves updating a set of parameters of a model based on the calculated probability.
Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim is ineligible.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply
an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 4
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
the additional training dataset comprises the additional training record, and wherein updating the set of parameters comprises updating the prior probability using the prior probability and a number of training records in the additional training dataset having the value for the risk indicator: This limitation is a mathematical concept because it involves updating parameters of a model and updating the previously calculated probability.
Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 6
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
the correlation is a Spearman correlation and the first predictive score and the second predictive score are each a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) score: This limitation recites a mathematical concept dealing with calculating correlations between scores.
Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim is ineligible.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply
an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 7
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
prior to generating the Bayesian prediction model: dividing values of a predictor variable in the initial training dataset into a first set of bins: This limitation is a mental process because it involves dividing data into bins.
and generating a second set of bins by merging two or more bins in the first set of bins into one bin, wherein representative values of the predictor variable in the second set of bins are monotonic with respect to the risk indicator: This limitation recites a mental process because it involves merging two subsets of data (bins) together, which can be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim is ineligible.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply
an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 8
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step2A Prong 1: This claim does not recite any abstract ideas but depends on claim 1 which does.
Step2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
additional elements are as follows:
the risk indicator comprises at least one of: a risk classification for the target entity; or a probability of the target entity being classified in the risk classification: The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
the risk indicator comprises at least one of: a risk classification for the target entity; or a probability of the target entity being classified in the risk classification: The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself which provide inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply
an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 9
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
determining… a risk indicator for the target entity from predictor variables associated with the target entity: This limitation recites a mental process because it involves evaluating information about a target entity and determining a risk based on the predictor variables.
Step2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
additional elements are as follows:
A system comprising: a processing device; and a memory device in which instructions executable by the processing device are stored for causing the processing device to: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
A system comprising: a processing device; and a memory device in which instructions executable by the processing device are stored for causing the processing device to: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and cannot provide inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The remainder of the claim recites identical limitations to claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 10-14 recite similar limitations to claims 2-7. Therefore, claims 10-14 are rejected using the same rationale as claims 2-7.
Claim 15
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory computer medium; therefore, it is directed to the statutory
category of manufacture.
Step2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
determining… a risk indicator for the target entity from predictor variables associated with the target entity: This limitation recites a mental process because it involves evaluating information about a target entity and determining a risk based on the predictor variables.
Step2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
additional elements are as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program code that is executable by a processor device to cause a computing device to: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program code that is executable by a processor device to cause a computing device to: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and cannot provide inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply
an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Claims 16- 20 recite similar limitations to claims 2-6. Therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected using the same rationale as claims 2-6.
Suggested Amendment:
Examiner suggests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 could potentially be overcome by amending the claim to actively recite controlling or granting/denying access of the target entity to the interactive computing environment using the generated access permission key rather than recite transmitting a message including the key for use in controlling access. This would potentially overcome the 101 issue because it would potentially provide a practical application of the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-18, and 20 overcome the prior art but are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a feature selection technique that removes one of a plurality of predictor variables based on a correlation between the predictor variables and a comparison of predictive scores of the variables, and the correlation being greater than a threshold value based on the comparison between the scores. The combination of correlation and predictive evaluation for selecting between correlated variables and their respective threshold value is not taught by the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAJD MAHER HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2265. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8-5 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, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/M.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125