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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Preliminary matters (Remarks 9), The drawings filed 8/29/2022 were accepted by the non-final office action summary mailed 1/23/2026. There is no foreign priority (35 USC 119) because this is a PCT application (35 USC 371).
Applicant argues that the abstract idea is not a mental concept,
Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed features cannot be practically performed in the human mind, even with a paper and pencil. For example, a human mind cannot practically extract, from the graph, a feature of the time-series change in company-to-company transaction relations using a predetermined algorithm that analyzes temporal structural changes in the graph, determine an explanatory variable of a growth potential of the intended company based on an extraction result, and generate an estimation model by learning a relation between the explanatory variable and the label assigned to the graph, the estimation model.
Remarks 9.
This claimed extraction of a feature from a time series, and determining an explanatory variable to predict growth potential of a company is a practice that has existed before computers, linear regression and forecasting. This is a mental concept.
With respect, to the abstract idea being a method of organizing human activity, Applicant argues, “the Examiner fails to specify which category claim 1 belongs to.” Remarks 10 referring to different categories of methods of organizing human activity stated in the MPEP. The rule is that “Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of [mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activity and mental processes]…” MPEP 2106.04(a). There is no requirement that examine further identify a subcategory of methods of organizing human activity. Extracting an explanatory variable to forecast company growth is a method of organizing human activity used across several industries, such as insurance, hedging and lending.
Applicant argues, “
Similar to Ex Parte Desjardins, the claimed invention provides an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. For example, the Specification describes the technical problem, which is difficulties of computer systems inadequately capturing features of time-series changes, which results in low accuracy in predictions of machine learning models using the time-series data. Claim 1, as a whole and when read in light of the Specification, solves this technical problem by at least generating a graph where the plurality of nodes including time series change information, extracting, from the graph, a feature of the time-series change in company-to- company transaction relations using a predetermined algorithm that analyzes temporal structural changes in the graph, determining an explanatory variable of a growth potential of the intended company based on an extraction result, and generating an estimation model by learning a relation between the explanatory variable and the label assigned to the graph, the estimation model.
Remarks 14-15.
The rule is that “A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it … improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Using a computer to do calculations does not improve the functioning of the computer. The claims are a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer. MPEP 2106.05(a).
The prior art rejections are overcome because they incorporate claim elements with no prior art rejection, see Note on Prior Art on Non-Final dated 1/23/2026.
Note on Prior art
There is no art rejection for claims 1, 3-6, and 11-19. Applicant recites, “extract a feature of a time-series change in the company-to-company transaction relation using a predetermined algorithm from the graph to which a growth record of the intended company indicated by the intended company attribute information is assigned as a label, and then determines an explanatory variable of the growth potential of the intended company based on an extraction result, thereby generating the estimation model including the explanatory variable.” The prior art of record doesn’t teach or make obvious extracting a feature “using a predetermined algorithm from the graph to which a growth record… is assigned as a label, and then determin[ing] and explanatory variable of the growth potential… thereby generating the estimation model….” Id.
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, 3-6, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental concept or method of organizing human activity without significantly more. The claims recite estimating growth potential based on accounting information, extracting features from accounting information, determining explanatory variables from a graph of accounting information and determining importance of accounting information. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the elements directed to generating a model and displaying results are insignificant extra-solution activity. New claim 18 is directed to training a model based on explanatory variables and an estimation of the growth potential, this is mere instructions to apply a training algorithm on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements directed to a processor and memory are generic computer parts.
Conclusion
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 Austin Hicks whose telephone number is (571)270-3377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-4 PST.
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, Mariela Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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.
/AUSTIN HICKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights