DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 20 November 2025 (hereinafter “Reply”). This action is made Final.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, there does not appear to be adequate support for the following newly added/amended limitations: “processing the extrapolated indication associated with the subsequent event to increase fidelity of an output file, the processing including utilizing a portion of the input data indicative of the at least one determined variable, the at least one determined variable, and the determined value for each determined variable of the at least one determined variable;” and “generating the output file indicative of the extrapolated indication.”
Applicant has indicated that support for the amendments can be found in paragraphs 72-73 and 92 of the specification. However, the referenced portion of the specification does not disclose the above limitations. Rather, the cited portion of the specification merely discloses generating an extrapolated indication. There is neither mention of processing an extrapolated indication nor mention of generating an output file indicative of the extrapolated indication. Notably, Applicant’s amendment to recite “processing” in place of “generating” necessitates that “processing” be narrowly interpreted to exclude “generating.” See Reply 4.
Additionally, the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result. A claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. MPEP § 2163.03(V). Specifically, a software-related claim must adequately describe, in sufficient detail, a computer and algorithm that achieves the claimed functionality. Id. § 2161.01(I). With regards to the claim at issue, the written description fails to provide algorithms for (1) processing an extrapolated indication associated with a subsequent event to increase fidelity of an output file, and (2) generating an output file indicative of an extrapolated indication.
Claim 2 is rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 1, at least due to its dependence on the claim.
Claims 3-20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 may be characterized as a method for generating an extrapolated indication associated with a subsequent event. This claim has been evaluated under the Alice/Mayo subject matter eligibility test as provided in MPEP § 2106.
I. Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea.
Courts have defined a mental process to include both concepts that may be performed entirely in the human mind and concepts that require a human to employ a physical aid (e.g., a pen and paper or slide rule). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Id.
The following limitations encompass mental processes:
“processing the extrapolated indication associated with the subsequent event to increase fidelity of an output file, the processing including utilizing a portion of the input data indicative of the at least one determined variable, the at least one determined variable, and the determined value for each determined variable of the at least one determined variable;” and
“wherein generating the extrapolated indication associated with the subsequent event utilizing the portion of the input data indicative of the at least one determined variable and each associated determined value reduces redundancy within the extrapolated indication.”
Regarding the first limitation, the claim does not specify how the extrapolated indication is processed. Rather, the specification states that a “subsequent event may include or be related to one or more of a loan, lease, mortgage, or structured payment plan” and that an “extrapolated indication may represent a predicted quality, outcome, or result associated with such events.” Specification ¶ 67. It is common place for a human to use data in order to evaluate such events. For example, a human would be able to predict that a borrower is likely to default on a mortgage loan based on a significant decrease in the borrower’s income. Accordingly, the process of generating an extrapolated indication is process that may be performed in the human mind.
Regarding the second limitation, this limitation has been interpreted to recite an intended result. Therefore, this limitation has been afforded no limiting effect. See MPEP § 2111.04.
II. Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Integration into a practical application should be determined by: “(1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the [listed] considerations.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) (emphasis added).
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“receiving, at a computing station, a representation of at least one determined variable and a determined value for each of the at least one determined variable, wherein the at least one determined variable is strongly correlated with indications of a plurality of previous events and is identified utilizing bivariate analysis and a plurality of data brackets, each data bracket of the plurality of data brackets correlated with indications of the plurality of previous events and identified utilizing a multiple variable algorithm and determination data indicative of the plurality of previous events associated with a plurality of users, and wherein the determined value for each associated determined variable separates ranges of data of the associated determined variable, which is strongly correlated with indications of the previous events within the determination data, and is generated utilizing bivariate analysis and the plurality of brackets;”
“receiving, at the computing station, input data including data associated with the subsequent event and indicative of the at least one determined variable for the subsequent event;” and
“generating the output file indicative of the extrapolated indication.”
A. The invention does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
Neither the claim nor the specification asserts that the invention improves upon the conventional functioning of a computer, conventional technology, or technological processes. Rather, the claim merely invokes a computer as a tool.
B. A computing station is not a particular machine.
A general-purpose computer that applies an abstract idea by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I). The claim recites the additional element of performing the claimed process using a computing station. A computing station is generic computer technology. Accordingly, the recited abstract idea is not applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.
C. Receiving/generating data are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The recitation of an insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim recites the additional elements of: (1) receiving a representation of at least one determined variable and a determined value; (2) receiving input data; and (3) generating an output file indicative of an extrapolated indication. Receiving data is an insignificant pre-solution activity related to mere data gathering. Generating an output file is an insignificant post-solution activity related to mere data output.
D. The relevant considerations indicate that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
When evaluated as a whole, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited 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.
III. Step 2B: The claim does not recite an additional element that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Whether a claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea should be determined by: (1) identifying any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (2) evaluating those additional elements, individually and in combination, with respect to the relevant considerations. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
First, as discussed above, the recited invention does not improve the functioning of a computer. Second, as discussed above, the recited computing station is a generic computer technology. Third, as discussed above, receiving data and outputting data are insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, individually, the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Finally, the combined additional elements do not result in a non-conventional or non-generic arrangement. Rather, the combined additional elements merely embody conventional data processing and data output functions performed by a generic computer.
Accordingly, when evaluated individually and in combination, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
IV. Conclusion: Ineligible
Claim 1 has been found to be directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2, which depends on claim 1, is directed to utilizing logistic regression to identify data brackets. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 may be characterized as a method for generating an extrapolated indication associated with a subsequent event. This claim has been evaluated under the Alice/Mayo subject matter eligibility test as provided in MPEP § 2106.
I. Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea.
The following limitations encompass mental processes:
“processing the extrapolated indication associated with the subsequent event to increase fidelity of an output file, the processing including utilizing a portion of the input data indicative of the at least one determined variable, the at least one determined variable, and a determined value for each determined variable of the at least one determined variable, wherein the determined value for each determined variable separates ranges of data of the associated determined variable, which is strongly correlated with indications of the plurality of previous events within the determination data, and is generating utilizing bivariate analysis and the plurality of brackets;” and
“wherein generating the extrapolated indication associated with the subsequent event utilizing the portion of the input data indicative of the at least one determined variable and each associated determined value reduces redundancy within the extrapolated indication.”
Regarding the first limitation, the claim does not specify how the extrapolated indication is processed. Rather, the specification states that a “subsequent event may include or be related to one or more of a loan, lease, mortgage, or structured payment plan” and that an “extrapolated indication may represent a predicted quality, outcome, or result associated with such events.” Specification ¶ 67. It is common place for a human to use data in order to evaluate such events. For example, a human would be able to predict that a borrower is likely to default on a mortgage loan based on a significant decrease in the borrower’s income. Accordingly, the process of generating an extrapolated indication is process that may be performed in the human mind.
Regarding the second limitation, this limitation has been interpreted to recite an intended result. Therefore, this limitation has been afforded no limiting effect. See MPEP § 2111.04.
II. Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“receiving, at a computing station, input data including data associated with the subsequent event and indicative of at least one determined variable for the subsequent event, wherein the at least one determined variable is strongly correlated with indications of a plurality of previous events and is identified utilizing bivariate analysis and a plurality of data brackets, each data bracket of the plurality of data brackets correlated with indications of the plurality of previous events and identified utilizing a multiple variable statistical algorithm and determination data indicative of the plurality of previous events associated with a plurality of users;” and
“generating the output file indicative of the extrapolated indication.”
A. The invention does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
Neither the claim nor the specification asserts that the invention improves upon the conventional functioning of a computer, conventional technology, or technological processes. Rather, the claim merely invokes a computer as a tool.
B. A computing station is not a particular machine.
A general-purpose computer that applies an abstract idea by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I). The claim recites the additional element of performing the claimed process using a computing station. A computing station is generic computer technology. Accordingly, the recited abstract idea is not applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.
C. Receiving/generating data are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The recitation of an insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim recites the additional elements of: (1) receiving, at a computing station, input data; and (2) generating an output file indicative of an extrapolated indication. Receiving input data is an insignificant pre-solution activity related to mere data gathering. Generating an output file is an insignificant post-solution activity related to mere data output.
D. The relevant considerations indicate that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
When evaluated as a whole, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited 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.
III. Step 2B: The claim does not recite an additional element that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
First, as discussed above, the recited invention does not improve the functioning of a computer. Second, as discussed above, the recited computing station is a generic computer technology. Third, as discussed above, receiving data and outputting data are insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, individually, the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Finally, the combined additional elements do not result in a non-conventional or non-generic arrangement. Rather, the combined additional elements merely embody conventional data processing and data output functions performed by a generic computer.
Accordingly, when evaluated individually and in combination, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
IV. Conclusion: Ineligible
Claim 3 has been found to be directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4, which depends on claim 3, is directed to receiving data. This function is merely insignificant pre-solution activity. Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5, which depends on claim 3, is directed to utilizing logistic regression to identify data brackets. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6, which depends on claim 3, is directed to utilizing a decision tree to identify a variable. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7, which depends on claim 3, is directed to utilizing a decision tree to generate a value. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8, which depends on claim 3, is directed to a description of the determined value. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9, which depends on claim 3, is directed to utilizing a second determined value to generate the extrapolated indication. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10, which depends on claim 9, is directed to a description of the determined value and the second determined value. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11, which depends on claim 3, is directed to utilizing a second determined value to generate the extrapolated indication. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12, which depends on claim 3, is directed to a description of the determined variable. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13, which depends on claim 12, is directed to utilizing a decision tree to identify a first determined variable. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14, which depends on claim 12, is directed to utilizing a decision tree to identify a second determined variable. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15, which depends on claim 3, is directed to a description of the first determined variable and the second determined variable. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16, which depends on claim 12, is directed to a description of the determined variable. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17, which depends on claim 12, is directed to utilizing a decision tree to identify a third determined variable. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept and a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18, which depends on claim 17, is directed to the use of determined variables representing financial risk data. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19, which depends on claim 3, is directed to the use of a determined variable representing financial risk data. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20, which depends on claim 3, is directed to communicating the generated extrapolated indication. This function is merely insignificant post-solution activity. Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 does not recite a mathematical concept. Reply 4. The argument is persuasive. Accordingly, the finding that amended claim 1 recites a mathematical concept has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 does not recite a mental process. Reply 4-5. Applicant contends that “amended independent claim now more affirmatively indicates that the extrapolated indication associated with the subsequent event is processed to increase fidelity of an output file and is no longer phrased as an intended result but as an actual process performed.” Id. Nevertheless, the phrase “to increase fidelity of an output file” is clearly an intended result. The phrase does not require (nor even suggest) any concrete step to be performed. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “amended claim 1 recites additional elements that include: a credentialed system for an encrypted session, a user device and a user interface, and a network.” Reply 6. These elements are not recited in claim 1. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “to increase fidelity of an output file” is “necessarily an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field.” Reply 7. However, as explained above, “to increase fidelity of an output file” is merely an intended result. A desire to improve the fidelity (i.e., accuracy) of data is neither a meaningful nor concrete technological improvement. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitations drawn to processing the extrapolated indication and generating the output file are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activities in the field. Reply 10. Concerning the first limitation, the Office has found the recited step of processing an extrapolated indication to be a mental process. Since this limitation is not an additional limitation beyond the recited judicial exception it is not relevant to the Step 2B analysis. Concerning the second limitation, generating an output file, courts have found that electronic recordkeeping and storing information are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171