DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 19 March 2026.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
As indicated in the Office Action mailed on 02 January 2026, claims 1-20 recite allowable subject matter and would be allowable if the claims were re-written or amended to overcome the 101 rejection indicated in the Office Action below.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method, and 11-20 are directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of providing one or more recommendations. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
identifying, a set of features influencing a customer feedback data associated with one or more customers;
identifying, one or more target features from the set of features;
fine-tuning, based on the one or more target features wherein:
the fine-tuning comprises hyperparameter turning based on validation using the customer feedback data;
determining, a probability of a promoter rating for the one or more customers based on the fine-tuning and the customer feedback data associated with the one or more customers;
determining, using shap values, a contribution of each target feature from the one or more target features in the probability of the promoter rating;
generating, at least one of a customer insight and a governance parameter, based on the contribution of each target feature in the probability of the promoter rating;
providing, the one or more recommendations based on at least one of the customer insights and the governance parameter.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of providing one or more recommendations, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims are directly related to providing recommendations that are based on customer insights that are further based on features that influence a customer feedback data associated with one or more customers, identifying target features within the set of features, fine-tuning the target features based on validating customer feedback data, determining a probability of a promoter rating for the one or more customers based on the fine-tuning, generating at least one of a customer insight and a governance parameter based on contribution of each target feature in the probability of the promoter rating, and providing the one or more recommendations based on at least one of the customer insights and the governance parameter, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The Examiner additionally notes that that the steps identifying, a set of features influencing a customer feedback data associated with one or more customers and identifying one or more target features from the set of features, would fall into the enumerated grouping of mental processes. A mental process is defined as and includes “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion)” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). In this case, the steps of identifying a set of features influencing a customer feedback, and identifying one or more target features, would be considered a concept performed in the human mind, such as observations. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea that also falls into the grouping of mental processes.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: a digital platform, a sub-system, the sub-system is a driver model, sub-system, and Out-Of-Time (OOT) validation.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing recommendations) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the 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). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of a digital platform, a sub-system, the sub-system is a driver model, sub-system, and Out-Of-Time (OOT) validation recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claim 11 is similar in nature to representative claim 1, and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 11 also includes the additional elements of a system and a processor. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the system and processor, as being anything other than a generic element. Thus, the claimed additional element of claim 11 is merely generic elements and the implementation of the element merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional element of claim 11 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional element of claim 11, considered individually and in combination with other additional elements of the claim (i.e., the identification unit, processing unit, digital platform, and subsystem), do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claim 11 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, depending from claims 1 and 11 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 2-10 and 12-20 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims includes the additional elements of one or more digital platforms (claims 7 and 17). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the one or more digital platforms as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 7 and 17 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 7 and 17, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-20 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 19 March 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 8-11 of the remarks stating “Each of the claims recites subject matter that the Office’s guidance demonstrates is eligible for patenting,” and “Applicant respectfully submits that even if the Office were to conclude that the pending claims recite an abstract idea, each of the claims still recites patent-eligible subject matter under the ‘second prong’,” and “Each of the pending claims recites elements that integrate any identifiable abstract idea into a practical application,” and “Even if the Examiner were to conclude that the pending claims recite an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process, Office Action, page 5), Example #46 of the October 2019 Example still demonstrates the patent-eligibility of each of the claims because each of the pending claims like sample 3 of Example #46, integrates the idea into a practical application,” and further “As a result of the hyperparameters tuning based on the OOT validation, the model – and thus, the recommendations therefrom – maintains its performance over time,” and “claim 1 recites meaningful limits on the scope of the claim, improves an existing process, and thus integrates any identifiable abstract idea into a practical application,” and “ the instant claims improve recommendations provided on a digital platform by fine-tuning the sub-system using hyper parameters tuning based on OOT validation to, in some embodiments, improve the model used to generate those recommendations,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, still recite an abstract of providing one or more recommendations. The claimed limitations recite steps that are directed to the abstract idea, as indicated in the Office Action above. The steps are specifically related to providing recommendations that are based on customer insights, where the steps are further based on features that influence a customer feedback data associated with one or more customers, identifying target features within the set of features, fine-tuning the target features based on validating customer feedback data, determining a probability of a promoter rating for the one or more customers based on the fine-tuning, generating at least one of a customer insight and a governance parameter based on contribution of each target feature in the probability of the promoter rating, and providing the one or more recommendations based on at least one of the customer insights and the governance parameter. These steps are considered an abstract idea, which falls into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, and the activities recited are related to sales activities or behaviors. Further, the identification steps recited in at least claim 1, are additionally considered mental processes, as both of the steps recited could be performed in the mind. For example, the step of identifying a set of features influencing a customer feedback and the step of identifying one or more target features, would both be observational steps that could be performed in the human mind. Thus, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the groupings of a certain method of organizing human activity, related to sales activities and behaviors, as well as a mental processes.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, the claim limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements, even when considered in combination, are recited in a generic manner, still recited at a high-level of generality, and do not demonstrate any type of technological solution to a technical problem. It is further noted that the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examples that are given, such as Example 46 (claim 3), are only hypothetical and exemplary in nature. However, when considering the instant claims, the claims do not recite features that are similar to those recited in Example 46. For example, Example 46 recites a problem specifically relating to “obtaining and analyzing identification and behavioral data of livestock animals, such as dairy cattle. Grass tetany (also called grass staggers) is a real nutritional deficiency that affects ruminant animals such as cattle and sheep” (see Subject Matter Eligibility Examples). The method of Example 46, specifically for claim 3, recites an abstract idea, and in this case falls into the sub-grouping of a mental process. Next, under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim was found to be eligible because claim recites a meaningful limitation that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim demonstrates employing information provided by the judicial exception, which in the Example is a mental analysis, to therefore operate the “the gate control mechanism and route the animals, thus avoiding the need for the farmer to visually evaluate the behavior of each animal in the herd on a continual basis,” and further “avoids the need for the farmer to devote more time to the care and treatment…of the animals,” and goes beyond merely automating the abstract ideas and uses the information of the judicial exception to correct and improve action “by operating the gate and routing animals in a particular way,” therefore integrating the abstract idea into management scheme of the livestock, practically applying the exception, and thus, is eligible (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples).
In this case, the claims are directed to solving problems of analyzing customer feedback data and providing improved recommendations to the customer. Although the instant claims do recite and are directed to an abstract idea that the identifying limitations fall into the sub-grouping of a mental process, the claims also are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, such as sales activities and behaviors. The instant claims do not recite meaningful limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as the combination of features and additional elements recited are still recited in a generic manner, where the additional elements are being used to apply the abstract idea with generically recited computing components and a processor. The instant claims in this case do not provide similar features that would go beyond automating the abstract idea that would provide a meaningful limitation to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, such as those recited in claim 3 of Example 46. Further, the claims do not reflect an improvement to the technology, such as to the model, nor to a technical field, as the features are still described at high-level are still being used to apply the abstract idea with a generically recited computer. The claims in this case are still only providing an improvement to the abstract idea providing recommendations to a customer, which is providing an improvement a commerce activity. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite and are directed to an abstract idea, and do not recite meaningful limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not demonstrate an improvement to the technology itself, and thus, maintains the 101 rejection.
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 ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights