DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 24-43 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 03/17/2026 amendment. Claims 24, 33, and 39 are amended. Claims 1-23 were previously canceled. No claims are newly added, withdrawn, or amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
The alleged abstract idea is not recited per se in the claims. Remarks p. 12.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s assessment. The abstract element of the claims are highlighted below in bold italics. The abstract idea is recited in the claim were the claim is found to be directed towards debt collection by a third party, where the claimed invention decides which parties may collect which debts.
For these reasons the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
The claims recite subject matter that has been shown to be non-abstract. Remarks p. 13
Respectfully, Applicant is remained that each applications are reviewed based on its own merits. What may have been found to have meaning in one application may take on a whole other meaning in another application. The Office does not find the claim to be directed towards “transforming data, storing specific data tables, algorithm organization, performing specific data analysis and data reduction and organization to reduce noise in data classification analysis and improve the efficiency and accuracy of machine learning algorithms” as Applicant claims on p. 13 of his remarks. Even if the Office agreed that the claimed invention was directed towards these elements the claimed invention would still be found to be directed to an abstract idea - mathematical concepts.
For these reasons the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
According to Ex Parte Holtmann-Rice the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and at the least integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. Remarks p. 14.
The Examiner is not familiar with Ex Parte Holtmann-Rice and has no opinion on it applicable to the instant claims.
Applicant’s ultimate argument appears to be that the claimed invention “recites a technical solution that improves the technical field of improving Artificial Intelligence.” Remarks p. 13. It is noted that PTAB in Holtmann-Rice (US Pat 12,079,700) found the claims directed to the abstract ideas of a mathematical concepts and mental process. Id. at p. 12. PTAB further provided, “providing” and “determining” steps integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application – improving the performance of a particular machine. Id. at p. 13-14.
The Office maintains there is no practical application of the identified abstract idea in the instant claimed invention. There is nothing analogous to the “providing” or “determining” steps of Holtmann-Rice. The instant claims simply analysis data to determine which debt collector is most efficient/appropriate to assign the collection of a debt based on a number of factors, i.e. historical data, classification of the data, and analyzing the data. There is no improvement to the performance of a particular machine.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
The present claims include a practical application of any alleged abstract idea. When considering the claim as a whole. Remarks p. 15.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s assessment. There is no practical application of the abstract idea, see the updated rejection below for further explanation.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
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 24-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 24-32 are to non-transitory computer-readable media (manufacture), claims 33-38 are to a method (process), and claims 39-43 are to a system (machine).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Where mathematical concepts are mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I)
Where certain methods of organizing human activity include 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) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 24 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
24. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method of verifying compliance and controlling debtor account access of third-party debt collection entities by a financial entity, by a machine learning algorithm, the method comprising:
determining a plurality of debtor accounts comprising a plurality of debts to be collected;
determining a plurality of debt collection entities for collecting the plurality of debts;
obtaining historical data indicative of past collections of the plurality of debt collection entities;
storing the historical data in a data treatment module, and processing the historical data to generate and store clean data by;
transforming and storing descriptors as numerical values that can be processed algebraically;
transforming categoric variables to algebraic variables that can be processed algebraically;
performing statistical analysis on the numerical values and the algebraic variables to remove outliers and resolve inconsistent data to reduce noise in the clean data;
storing the clean data in a clean data data table;
assessing discrimination power of each variable of the clean data data table; and
reducing dimensionality of the clean data data table by eliminating variables through correlation analysis, and increasing a total discrimination power of the clean data;
assessing data quality of the clean data to determine a set of variables and algorithms to process the clean data;
iteratively running a supervised learning algorithm based on the data quality to classify each variable of the set of variables as at least an account type classifier that fall into pre-existing account classifications and payment types to send to a debt collection entity that maximizes a return;
for each variable of the set of variables that does not fall into the pre-existing account classification, performing cluster analysis to classify each variable based on classifications and performance of each debt collection entity of the plurality of debt collection entities;
storing an output from the supervised learning algorithm and the cluster analysis into a final dataset;
providing, to the plurality of debt collection entities, access to the plurality of debtor accounts and resources to contact debtors associated with the plurality of debtor accounts via a dedicated server of the financial entity;
analyzing the final dataset to determine a compliance score indicative of debt collection compliance standards associated with each debt collection entity of the plurality of debt collection entities by comparing debt collection compliance records to a debt collection compliance threshold for each debt collection entity;
determining a first set of debt collection entities comprising a debt collection compliance below the debt collection compliance threshold;
automatically blocking the resources between the first set of debt collection entities and a first set of debtors of a set of associated debt collection accounts;
determining a second set of debt collection entities whose debt collection compliance is above the debt collection compliance threshold;
analyzing the final dataset to determine performance quantifiers associated with the second set of debt collection entities;
allocating the set of associated debt collection accounts to the second set of debt collection entities;
tracking collections of debts associated with the set of associated debt collection accounts by the second set of debt collection entities; and
updating the performance quantifiers associated with the second set of debt collection entities based on a response of a second set of debtors to collections by the second set of debt collection entities.
The claims are directed to debt collection by determining which debt collectors are best suited to collect debts. To do this claimed invention employs several mathematical concepts for example - transforming . . . descriptors as numerical values that can be processed algebraically; transforming categoric variables to algebraic variables that can be processed algebraically; performing statistical analysis on the numerical values and the algebraic variables to remove outliers and resolve inconsistent data to reduce noise in the clean data; . . . assessing discrimination power of each variable of the clean data data table, and reducing dimensionality of the clean data data table by eliminating variables through correlation analysis to increase the discrimination power . . assessing data quality of the clean data to determine a set of variables and algorithms to process the clean data; iteratively running a supervised learning algorithm based on the data quality to classify each variable of the set of variables as at least an account type classifier that fall into pre-existing account classifications and payment types to send to a debt collection entity that maximizes a return. The claimed invention recites mathematical relationship. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols, see for example a conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary, Benson, 409 U.S. at 64, 175 USPQ at 674 and organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
As stated above claims are directed to debt collection by determining which debt collectors are within the collection compliance threshold; thus best suited to collect debts. The claimed invention further tracks the collection of the debts to periodically update the collectors’ abilities collect debts. Where the Office find debt collection regardless of it form to be a fundamental economic practice. Further it is noted that the allocation of debts to collectors to collectors to be collected is the managing interactions between people inclusive of following instructions. Therefore the Office finds the claims to be directed to an abstract idea.
Finally, the claims debt collection by determining which debt collectors are best suited to collect debts. But for the nominal recitation of computing elements various elements of the claim could be carried out using the human mind with the aid a pencil and paper. For example using the humans mind ability to reason and analyzed could – determine a plurality of debtor account and debt collection entities. Using the mind’s ability to recognized relationships and perform calculations, a user could transform descriptors and categoric variables to numerical values for algebraically processing, statistical analysis to remove outliers as well as performing the high level cleaning of the data and the clustering of the data.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The updating elements are determined to be extra-solution activity – outputting the result of the analysis.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. The claimed invention uses generic component well-known in the art.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claims 25, 29, 32¸ 37, 38, and 43 further defines the performance quantifiers used to evaluate parties ability to collect a debt (see, instant spec [36]), thus it adds to the abstract idea of certain organizing human activity.
Claim 26 and 40 further defines contact information and contact means ordering for the debtor, thus it adds to the abstract idea of certain organizing human activity.
Claim 27 further defines a recommendation of how the debt collection should be done, thus it adds to the abstract idea of certain organizing human activity.
Claims 28, 36, 42 further defines contact information which is found to be insignificant extra solution activity – data collection.
Claim 30 and 31 further defines determining a credit score which is found to be insignificant extra solution activity, outputting.
Claim 35 and 41 further defines evaluating debt collection contact methods which adds to the abstract idea of certain organizing human activity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gorski et al (US 2024/0378683 A1) teaches individual's digital health record can have an associated value, there is no system or method for an individual or groups of individuals to leverage their collected health data as a form of collateral to receive consideration (e.g., a loan), or as a form of digital currency to acquire other consideration (e.g., goods, services).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights