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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final office action is in response to the application filed on June 3, 2022, the amendments to the claims filed on March 26, 2024, the Request for Continued Examination filed on October 31, 2024, the response filed on May 13, 2025, and the Request for Continued Examination filed on November 28, 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 28, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent apparatus Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent product Claims 16 and 18 and system Claim 17. Claim 1 recites the limitations of at least one memory; a component collection stored in the at least one memory; any of at least one processor disposed in communication with the at least one memory, the any of the at least one processor executing processor-executable instructions from the component collection, storage of the component collection structured with processor-executable instructions, comprising: obtain a machine learning (ML) training request datastructure, in which the N\L training request datastructure is structured specifying a set of agent profile datastructures and an agent sample ranking function, in which an agent profile datastructure is structured specifying an agent's episodic holdings, trades and cashflow data at a bucket level for a training period; determine an agent samples range, in which the agent samples range is structured as a set of subsequences of agents' episodic holdings, trades and cashflow data; generate a set of inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) training sample datastructures, in which an IRL training sample datastructure is structured specifying a pairwise comparison of rankings of a pair of agents during a subsequence in the set of subsequences as determined using the agent sample ranking function; determine a reward function structured for use for inverse reinforcement learning; determine an optimal reward function having the determined reward function structure using an IRL technique on the set of IRL training sample datastructures, in which the optimal reward function is structured having parameters that keep pairwise agent ranking orders specified in the set of IRL training sample datastructures; determine an optimal policy using a reinforcement learning (RL) technique and the optimal reward function, in which the optimal policy provides trading recommendations based on current holdings and an order constraint value; and store an optimal policy datastructure, in which the optimal policy datastructure is structured specifying a set of parameters that define the structure of the optimal policy.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity/mental process. Determining an optimal policy recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice/concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity/Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Particularly, in light of the specification, the use of an IRL technique on the set of IRL training sample datastructures are to provide, “an efficient mechanism to transform humans knowledge to machines” (paragraph [0020]). The at least one memory and at least one processor in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. There are no hardware components in Claims 16-18. The component collection, processor-executable instructions, and data structures in Claims 1, 16, 17, and 18 appears to be just software. Claims 16, 17 and 18 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite at least one memory and at least one processor in Claim 1 and component collection, processor-executable instructions, and data structures software in Claims 1, 16, 17, and 18. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 16, 17, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0020, 0122-0125] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. In addition, performing the judicial exception steps using IRL merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2105(h). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 16, 17, and 18 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-15 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 16, 17, and 18 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2-4 further define the agent profile datastructures; claim 5 further defines a bucket; claim 6 further defines the training period time length; claim 7 further defines the type of ratio used; claims 8 and 9 further define the set of subsequences; claim 10 further defines the sample datastructure; claims 11 and 12 further define the reward function; claims 13 and 14 further define the IRL and RL technique; and claim 15 further defines the structure of the optimal policy. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-15 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-18 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record citing the SME test (Remarks, pages 8-24) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, arguments amounting to a general allegation of patentability without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is statutory.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are not abstract since they recite a particular manner of asset planning and specific improvements over prior methods Core Wireless Licensing (Arguments, pages 24-28), are not persuasive. Specifically, in Core Wireless the court found that, “Although the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. … These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory, and Finjan, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” However the present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Elec. Power, 2016 WL4073318, at *4.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to those found statutory in DDR, (Remarks, pages 24-28), are not found persuasive. The claims in DDR were rooted in computer technology because they modified the way the internet functioned to address a problem that was created by the invention of the internet. DDR dealt with a problem unique to the Internet whereby owners of one web site did not want to redirect users away to a different web site. The claimed solution in DDR created a hybrid web page incorporating look and feel elements from the host web site with commerce objects from the third-party web site. This feature, which was neither a generic computer function nor a conventional network operation, qualified as an inventive concept. But Applicant’s claims do not address redirecting problems unique to the Internet and do not use hybrid web sites. So DDR has no applicability.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Enfish and TLI Communications, (Remarks, pages 24-28), are not found persuasive. In Enfish, the court found that the inventive concept was a new type of data structure called self-referential table to improve the storing and retrieving data in memory. The court described this as an improvement in the functioning of a computer. However, the current claims do not purport to creating or improving any data structure or a computer. Hence, Enfish does not apply.
Applicant’s arguments that the claim elements amount to significantly more (Remarks, pages 29-34) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0122-0125] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. In addition, performing the judicial exception steps using IRL merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2105(h).
Applicant’s arguments the claim requires computer implementation and, therefore, meets the Machine-or-Transformation test (M-or-T test), (Remarks, pages 34-39) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. While the M-or-T test is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test. A claim must pass the two-part framework from Alice/Mayo for eligibility. Moreover, the machine components in the claims do not impose any meaningful limitations on the abstract idea as they amount to applying the idea with a computer. As explained in the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance and the subsequent 2019 PEG, a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry does not qualify as significantly more.
Applicant's arguments regarding the previous office actions response to arguments (pages 39-44) fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached on (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
1/7/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695