DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 3/30/26. Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are amended, claim(s) none is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant states support can be found at instant specification [0004-0006]. Therefore, Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 do not have prior art rejections.
Closest prior art to the invention claims without rejections include
Pevzner et al. (US 2016/0093000 A1) in view of Kelly et al. (US 2016/0048556 A1) and Phillipps et al. (US 2014/0358825 A1) for claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 3/30/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 8-11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims are an abstract idea directed to strategy determination for an art institution regarding selection of artists.
The amendment does not overcome the current 101 rejection as the claims are determined to be similar to example 47 claim 2 (as opposed to claim 3) from the 101 examples for July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Here the generating step is viewed as similar to example 47 claim 2 step f and claim 3 step d (in contrast to example 47 claim 3 steps e and f).
Applicant is relying on 2106.05(d) “well understood, routine, and conventional” however Examiner is relying on 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Examiner relied on “apply it” because of item (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process of 2106.05(f).
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1 and 11 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to strategy determination for an art institution regarding selection of artists.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 1-4, 6-10 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 11-14 and 16-20 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 1: gathering data representing the social network, the social network including a plurality of resources and a plurality of agents seeking to alter values of the resources;
generating a graph representing the social network, the graph including nodes representing the plurality of agents, the nodes connected by edges specifying how resources are transferred between the agents, the nodes further comprising a downstream node and an upstream node;
based at least in part on the graph, determining an affinity value between respective agents in the plurality of agents, the affinity value representing a degree to which the respective agents and the agents surrounding the respective agents in the graph share common resources;
PNG
media_image1.png
186
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
based at least in part on the graph, determining a trajectory value between the respective agents in the plurality of agents, the trajectory value representing a likelihood that a first agent in the plurality of agents presented a resource subsequent to a second agent in the plurality of agents, wherein the determining the trajectory value comprises:
(also bolded)
training a machine learning model comprising a neural network to identify goal of the plurality of agents, wherein during the training, initial model parameters are configured for the machine learning model;
updating, based on a comparison between the goal and a ground truth associated with the goal, the machine learning model to produce a lowest error of convergence, wherein during the updating, a subset of the initial model parameters are configured for the machine learning model until the machine learning model converges at the lowest error;
providing the affinity value and the trajectory value into the updated trained machine learning model;
generating the goal of the plurality of agents based on an output of the updated trained machine learning model, wherein the output comprises a trajectory with a highest weight determined by the updated trained machine learning model; and
retrieving, from the trajectory and based on the goal of the plurality of agents, a shortest path starting from the downstream node and ending upon the upstream node.
Claim 11: the same analysis as claim(s) 1.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-20 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1 and 11 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with strategy determination for an art institution regarding selection of artists.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include machine learning model, neural network (claim(s) 1 and 11), non-transitory computer-readable device, and at least one computing device (claim(s) 11).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0110]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0110]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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.
/JAMES WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights