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 .
Claims Status
Claims 7-8 and 15-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-6 and 9-14 remain pending and stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amended claim features. The rejection is withdrawn.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2a (Prong One), the Examiner maintains that the claims at least “reciter” an abstract idea. Although the claimed “training” adds additional elements for consideration, this does not negate the finding under Prong One.
Under Prong Two and Step 2B, the claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that they use existing machine learning technology (such as one-vs-rest model comprising binary classifiers) to perform operations for using elicited factors to information intervention suggestions in order to shift preferences of a user based with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved.
With respect to the discussion of “sparse training data” and learning approaches that are “data hungry”, the Examiner notes that these are problems that are core to the very nature of machine learning. Merely solving the problem by gathering survey data to be provided as selected training data (e.g., 0063) is not tantamount to improving the field of machine learning itself. Even in view of paragraphs 0057 and 0061, the claimed training does not move beyond the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. At best, the alleged improvement is one that is conclusory in nature – i.e., the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the field of machine learning. Utilizing training at a high-level with respect to “one-vs-rest” models – which are known in the industry – does not rise to the level of disclosure that Applicant invented a particular method of training that results in an improvement to the field of machine learning itself.
Throughout the disclosure, the OVR model is merely referenced without details of how to implement the OVR in a particular manner to address the “sparse” data set. The Examiner holds that, as claimed and described in the specification, that the claims do no more than set forth the application of generic machine learning to a new data environment (factor-based interventions for overcoming user barriers), without disclosing improvements to the underlying technology of machine learning.
A review of the specification further underscores that the invention lies within the improvement to the abstract process. The background of the specification purports specifically to solve problems relating to guiding behavioral changes for user preferences – e.g., “a behavioral change technique using cognitive intervention is desired” (0004), such as through the use of elicited factors to inform the intervention suggestions and shift preferences (0005). Although the invention may offer an improvement in this field, this merely represents a new environment for which machine learning may be applied.
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 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-6 and 9-14, under Step 2A claims 1-6 and 8-14 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 9 as representative, claim 9 recites use of elicited factors to inform intervention suggestions, including
identify a user profile corresponding to a demographic of a user according to a background of the user;
predict factors including an associated set of barriers and/or motivators regarding a respective preference associated with the identified user profile;
predict a plurality of interventions associated with the identified user profile to shift a preference of the user;
present a highest-ranked intervention corresponding to a selected highest-ranked barrier to the user;
present a next highest-ranked intervention corresponding to a selected next highest- ranked barrier; and
repeating the selecting, presenting, and updating until a score threshold, or a maximum number of interventions is reached.
These limitations recite organizing human activity, such as by Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because the claimed invention sets forth and/or describes the use of elicited factors to inform intervention suggestions in order to shift preferences of a user based on information about that user. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 9 recites an abstract idea because claim 9 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 9 does recite additional elements including a non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code recorded thereon, the program code being executed by a processor and multiple program code to limitations (e.g., program code to identify, predict, present, etc.). Claim 9 also recites:
program code to train a factor prediction model to perform a multilabel classification task using a one-vs-rest model comprising a plurality of binary classifiers, each binary classifier trained to distinguish one barrier of a predetermined number of barriers from remaining barriers of the predetermined number of barriers, based on a reduced dataset comprising fewer than a threshold number of training samples per barrier;
a factor prediction model,
a selected, pretrained reinforcement learning model,
a user device,
a server computer, and,
program code to update the selected, pretrained reinforcement learning model based on a measured preference shift of the user in response to the presented intervention.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 9 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). With respect to the claimed training and updating models, the claims do no more than set forth the application of generic machine learning to a new data environment (factor-based interventions for overcoming user barriers), without disclosing improvements to the underlying technology of machine learning. Moreover, such iterative training is incident to the very nature of machine learning (Recentive Analytics, Inc v. Fox Corp (Fed Cir, 2023-2437, 4/18/2025).
Lastly, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
In addition to the above, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 9 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 9, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A (prong 2)), the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 9 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
performing repetitive calculations, and/or
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 9 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 9 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 10-14, dependent claims 10-14 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 9. As such, claims 10-14 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 10-14 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 10-14 recite further “program code to” elements. As with claim 9, these elements are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). This is especially noteworthy with respect to claim 11, which do little more than recite the use of generic computing components in training (claim 11) in support of the abstract process as discussed previously.
Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 10-14 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 10-14 and 16 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 1-6 (method), claims 1-6 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 9-14 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, claims 1-6 are rejected under at least similar rationale as discussed above concerning claims 9-14.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
Although claims 1-6 and 9-14 remain rejected on other grounds, these claims are allowable over the prior art for at least the reasons set forth in Non-Final Action mailed 2/25/2026, p. 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PTO form 892-U demonstrates the common use of one-vs-all (i.e., one-vs-rest) and transformation of multi-class problems into binary classification problems (see 3rd Paragraph)
PTO form 892-V discusses Multi-class classification techniques including one-vs-rest to allows categorizing data into multiple class labels present in trained data as a model prediction. The reference includes discussion of binary vs. multi-class classification. See Sections 1-2, Fig. 3-4 and Fig. 9).
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 WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights