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 .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed7/10/2025. Claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended. Claim 2 was cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-21 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/10/2025, with respect to claims 1 and 3-21 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “As amended, claim 1 recites a practical application through the recited elements of, "sending recommendation data to be accessible to the user account, wherein the recommendation data is indicative of a recommendation of a modification from utilizing the first product to utilizing a second product of the products, wherein the user account is assessed a second charge for access to utilize the second product, and wherein the second charge is less than the first charge; and after the sending of the recommendation data, and based on determining that the modification to utilizing the second product has been implemented, reducing a charge to the user account from the first charge to the second charge." For at least these reasons, assignee's representative submits that amended claim 1 recites eligible subject matter, as do dependent claims 2-7. Assignee's representative requests that the Office reconsider the rejection. Assignee's representative amends independent claims 8 and 15 in a similar manner, and submits that these amended claims recite eligible subject matter, as do respective dependent claims 9-14 and 16-20. Assignee's representative requests that the Office reconsider the rejection”, (see remarks , pg. 9-10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for predicting maintenance cost, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as two individuals along with a database can interact with one another to determine a risk probability distribution for an input based on predicted maintenance cost, additionally falls under mathematical concepts such a mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations as the models can be laid out by pen and paper as a human can perform calculation to present a fitted model. The computing elements such as “system, processor, memory, artificial intelligence risk model, fitted model, tree model, tree gradient boosting model of claim 1; processor, artificial intelligence risk model, fitted model, tree gradient boosting model of claim 8; processor, medium, artificial intelligence risk model, fitted model, tree gradient boosting model of claim 15” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
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 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for predicting maintenance cost.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “facilitate performance of operations, comprising: fitting to data based on labeled training data, wherein the labeled training data comprises respective features of users and products, and corresponding labels of respective maintenance costs applicable to the products, that implements a divergence process and that is configured to differentiate between groups of the data with differing maintenance cost probability distributions, and wherein the divergence process comprises implementing iterations of a splitting criterion that splits a data sets into two distributions of subsets that are normalized by respective sizes of the respective distributions of subsets, and wherein the model comprises a model that comprises multiple trees; in response to applying a first input, producing an output that indicates a predicted maintenance cost probability distribution, wherein the first input comprises a feature of a user account of the user accounts and a first product of the products, and wherein the user account is assessed a first charge for access to the first product; determining a risk probability distribution for the first input based on the predicted maintenance cost probability distribution; sending recommendation data to be accessible to the user account, wherein the recommendation data is indicative of a recommendation of a modification from utilizing the first product to utilizing a second product of the products, wherein the user account is assessed a second charge for access to utilize the second product, and wherein the second charge is less than the first charge; and after the sending of the recommendation data, and based on determining that the modification to utilizing the second product has been implemented, reducing a charge to the user account from the first charge to the second charge” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, additionally mathematical concepts such a mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations as the models can be laid out by pen and paper as a human can perform calculation to present a fitted model. The mere recitation of a generic computer (system, processor, memory, artificial intelligence risk model, fitted model, tree model, tree gradient boosting model of claim 1; processor, artificial intelligence risk model, fitted model, tree gradient boosting model of claim 8; processor, medium, artificial intelligence risk model, fitted model, tree gradient boosting model of claim 15) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1 and 3-21 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (system, processor, memory, artificial intelligence risk model, fitted model, tree model, tree gradient boosting model of claim 1; processor, artificial intelligence risk model, fitted model, tree gradient boosting model of claim 8; processor, medium, artificial intelligence risk model, fitted model, tree gradient boosting model of claim 15). The system, processor, memory, artificial intelligence risk model, fitted model, tree model, tree gradient boosting model of claim 1; processor, artificial intelligence risk model, fitted model, tree gradient boosting model of claim 8; processor, medium, artificial intelligence risk model, fitted model, tree gradient boosting model of claim 15, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 3-7, 9-14 and 16-21 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the system in claims 3-7; fitted model in claims 6, 9, 16 and 18; tree model of claim 3, 5, 9-14 and 16; medium in claims 16-20; Kullback-Leibler divergence of claim 3-4 and 21; genetic programming of claim 14, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
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 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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights