DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the original application filed on 4/25/2023 and the Remarks and Amendments filed on 7/31/2026. Acknowledgment is made with respect to a claim of priority to Provisional Application 63/450,915 filed on 3/8/2023.
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 1-7, and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
generate, in real time, output data indicative of a likelihood of an occurrence of at least one targeted event associated with the data exchange during a future temporal interval: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating output data indicating a likelihood of am event during a future time interval, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally predict an event in the future based on received information.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements consist of “a memory storing instructions; a communications interface; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and the communications interface, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to”, “receive, from a device via the communications interface, application data characterizing an exchange of data”, “based on an application of an artificial-intelligence process to an input dataset that includes at least a portion of the application data”, “the artificial-intelligence process being trained using datasets associated with inferred ground-truth labels, the inferred ground-truth labels being generated based on explainability data characterizing an impact of at least one first sequential feature on an output of the artificial- intelligence process and on third-party information associated with the datasets”, and “transmit at least a portion of the output data to the device via the communications interface, the device being configured to present a graphical representation of the portion of the output data within a digital interface”.
The additional elements of “a memory storing instructions; a communications interface; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and the communications interface, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to” amount to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional element of “based on an application of an artificial-intelligence process to an input dataset that includes at least a portion of the application data” amounts to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the generic AI model is broadly applied to input data to generate a likelihood of an occurrence of an event in real-time. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “receive, from a device via the communications interface, application data characterizing an exchange of data” and “transmit at least a portion of the output data to the device via the communications interface, the device being configured to present a graphical representation of the portion of the output data within a digital interface” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements of “the artificial-intelligence process being trained using datasets associated with inferred ground-truth labels, the inferred ground-truth labels being generated based on explainability data characterizing an impact of at least one first sequential feature on an output of the artificial- intelligence process and on third-party information associated with the datasets” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Thus, even when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “a memory storing instructions; a communications interface; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and the communications interface, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to” amount to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional element of “based on an application of an artificial-intelligence process to an input dataset that includes at least a portion of the application data” amounts to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the generic AI model is broadly applied to input data to generate a likelihood of an occurrence of an event in real-time. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “receive, from a device via the communications interface, application data characterizing an exchange of data” and “transmit at least a portion of the output data to the device via the communications interface, the device being configured to present a graphical representation of the portion of the output data within a digital interface” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “Presenting offers and gathering statistics”; and see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pages 9-10: “The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices).
The additional elements of “the artificial-intelligence process being trained using datasets associated with inferred ground-truth labels, the inferred ground-truth labels being generated based on explainability data characterizing an impact of at least one first sequential feature on an output of the artificial- intelligence process and on third-party information associated with the datasets” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 2
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate the input dataset based on at least the portion of the application data and on interaction data characterizing the applicant” amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “the application data characterizes an application for the data exchange, the application involving an applicant” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 3
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites inter alia:
based on the data that characterizes the composition, perform operations that (i) extract a first feature value from at least one of the portion of the application data or a portion of the interaction data: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of extracting feature values from data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
(ii) compute a second feature value based on at least one of the portion of the application data or the portion of the interaction data: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of computing feature values from data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper or is a mathematical concept.
generate the input dataset based on at least one of the extracted first feature value or the computed second feature value: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating an input dataset from feature information, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “obtain data that characterizes a composition of the input dataset” is insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 4
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites inter alia:
generate the input dataset based on the portion of the application data and on the portion of the interaction data: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating an input dataset from data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “obtain at least a portion of the interaction data from the memory based on the identifier of the applicant” is insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Storing and retrieving information in memory”). The additional element of “the application data comprises an identifier of the applicant” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h).Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 5
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites inter alia:
based on the output data, generate decision data associated with a decision to approve the application for the data exchange: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating decision data based on an approval, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional elements of “transmit at least a portion of the decision data to the device via the communications interface, the portion of the decision data causing an application program executed by the device to generate, and present within the digital interface, elements of digital content that characterize the decision to approve the application” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “Presenting offers and gathering statistics”; and see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pages 9-10: “The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 6
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “the executed application program causes the device to present the graphical representation of the portion of the output data within the digital interface” is insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Presenting offers and gathering statistics”; and see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pages 9-10: “The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices). The additional element of “the device is operable by an applicant associated with the application data, and the application data is generated by an application program executed by the device” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h).Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 7
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites inter alia:
generate the input dataset in accordance with the data that characterizes the composition: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating an input dataset based on composition data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “obtain (i) data that characterizes a composition of the input dataset and (ii) one or more process parameters that characterize the trained artificial-intelligence process” is insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The additional element of “apply the trained artificial-intelligence process to the input dataset in accordance with the one or more process parameters” amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “the artificial-intelligence process comprises a trained, gradient-boosted, decision- tree process” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h).Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 9
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites inter alia:
determine that the elements of the additional application data are associated with corresponding ones of a first element population and a second element population: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of determining that application information corresponds to population information, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
generate a plurality of first datasets based on the elements of the additional application data associated with the first element population, and perform operations that assign a ground-truth label to each of the first datasets based on corresponding elements of interaction data: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating datasets based on application data and assigning labels to the data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
generate first composition data and the explainability data, the first composition data identifying a plurality of first sequential features, and the explainability data characterizing an impact of each of the first sequential features on an output of the artificial-intelligence process: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating composition and explainability data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element “perform operations that train the artificial-intelligence process based on the first datasets and corresponding ones of the assigned ground-truth labels” amounts to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the generic AI model is broadly trained on certain datasets and labels. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 10
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites inter alia:
generate a plurality of second datasets based on the elements of the additional application data associated with the second element population;: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating datasets based on application information, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
based on the explainability data and on the third party information, perform operations that generate a corresponding one of the inferred ground-truth labels for each of the second datasets: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating labels for datasets, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
generate second composition data, the elements of second composition data identifying a plurality of second sequential features: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating composition data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element “perform operations that train the artificial-intelligence process based on the second datasets and corresponding ones of the inferred ground-truth labels” amounts to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the generic AI model is broadly trained on certain datasets and labels. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “obtain the third-party information from the memory, the third-party information being associated with the second element population” is insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 11
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites inter alia:
generate combined composition data based on the first and second composition data, the combined composition data identifying combined sequential features that include at least one of the first sequential features and at least one of the second sequential features: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating composition data based on other composition data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
generate a plurality of third input datasets based on elements of the additional application data associated with the first and second element populations, each of the third input datasets having a composition consistent with the combined composition data: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of input datasets based on application data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
generate final composition data and final process data, the elements of final composition data identifying a plurality of final sequential features, and the final process data comprising a final value of one or more process parameters: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating composition data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element “perform operations that train the artificial-intelligence process based on the third datasets and corresponding ones of the assigned and inferred ground-truth labels” amounts to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the generic AI model is broadly trained on certain datasets and labels. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claims 12-19
Claims 12-19 recite a method (step 1: a process) to perform the steps of claims 1-4, 7, and 9-11, respectively, without any additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea by itself, and are thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 1-4, 7, and 9-11, respectively.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium (step 1: a manufacture) using a processor to perform the steps of claim 1, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) (“apply it”) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea by itself, and are thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 21
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “receive the third-party information from an additional computing system via the communications interface and to store the third-party information within the memory” is insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “Storing and retrieving information in memory”). The additional element of “and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to” amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “the inferred ground-truth label for each of the second datasets is indicative of an occurrence or a non-occurrence of an inferential event associated with the at least one first sequential feature within a corresponding element of the third-party information … the inferred ground-truth label for each of the second datasets is indicative of an occurrence or a non-occurrence of an inferential event associated with the at least one first sequential feature within a corresponding element of the third-party information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h).Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments, filed on 7/31/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection of the pending claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues “the Office fails to provide reasoning sufficient to establish that Applicant's independent claims, even in unamended form, recite a patent-ineligible abstract idea or other judicial exception … the Office fails to provide reasoning sufficient to establish that Applicant's independent claims recite a patent-ineligible "mental process." … any interpretation of Applicant's independent claim without accounting for any hardware limitations or software limitations (e.g., artificial-intelligence processes) would be facially inconsistent with the Applicant's Specification, and as such, inconsistent with the Office's own examination procedures … the Office's analysis does not- and cannot identify any portion of Applicant's Specification that would support its conclusion that a user could perform, via pen and paper or in the mind, any of the actual elements recited by Applicant's independent claims … the claimed combination of elements recited by Applicant's independent claims encompass artificial intelligence in a manner that cannot be performed practically in the human mind, and as such, Applicant's independent claims cannot recite a patent-ineligible mental process in accordance with the Office's examination guidelines … the Office fails to establish that Applicant's independent claims recite an abstract idea or other patent-ineligible judicial exception consistent with the Office's examination guidelines”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Office has provided sufficient reasoning for why the independent claims recite an abstract idea. The abstract idea of the independent claims is “generate, in real time, output data indicative of a likelihood of an occurrence of at least one targeted event associated with the data exchange during a future temporal interval”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating output data indicating a likelihood of an event during a future time interval, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, a human being can practically and mentally predict an event in the future based on received information about an exchange of data. There is no evidence in the claim language or originally filed specification that the generation of output data indictive of a likelihood of an occurrence of a targeted event as claimed cannot be performed by a human being, and Applicant has failed to provide this evidence.
Applicant's arguments are replete with assertions that the Examiner has failed to provide "sufficient reasoning to support its conclusion that Applicant's independent claims recite a patent-ineligible" abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that MPEP $2106.07 (h) recites:
After examiners identify and explain in the record the reasons why a claim is directed to an abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or law of nature without significantly more, then the burden shifts to the applicant to either amend the claim or make a showing of why the claim is eligible for patent protection. See MPEP $2106.07 (h).
The Examiner has already explained in the record the reasons why the claim recites an abstract idea and, as such, the burden of proof shifts to the applicant to make a showing of why the claim does not.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues “Applicant's claims are nevertheless integrate allegedly recited abstract idea into a patent-eligible, practical application and as such, are not directed to any patent-ineligible abstract idea … the Office's cursory analysis of Applicant's independent claims under Prong Two of Revised Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, without any reference to Applicant's Specification, remains inconsistent with the Office's own examination practice and with the actual language recited by Applicant's independent claims … the elements recited by Applicant's independent claims, when considered as a whole and in unamended form, provide a specific, technological improvement to another technology or technical field, e.g., a specific, technological improvement that, among other things, improves an operation of a machine-learning or artificial intelligence processes addresses and overcomes inferencing bases in machine learning or artificial intelligence processes and as such, that improves an operation of these machine-learning or artificial intelligence processes … independent claims 1, 12, and 20, as amended herein, recite elements that reflect the specific, technological improvement described by Applicant's Specification … the claimed combination of elements recited similarly by amended independent claims 1, 12, and 20 extends beyond a mere application of a "generic machine learning functionality" to a new field of use, and instead provides a specific, technological improvement to the operation of a machine-learning or artificial process that improves the accuracy of the machine-learning or artificial process and substantially reduces or eliminates the inferencing biases characteristics of many existing adaptive techniques, e.g., by training the machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process using datasets associated with respective training, validation, and testing periods and using corresponding assigned and inferred ground- truth labels”, citing to paragraphs [0017]-[0020], [0045], [0065], and [0076]-[0086] as alleged evidence of a technical improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner has evaluated the additional elements of the claims beyond the abstract ideas and concluded that these additional elements in the claim language do not integrate the abstract ideas of the claim into a practical application or reflect a technical improvement. Further, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. This analysis was performed using the guidance outlined in §2106.04(d) of the MPEP.
Second, it is not clear from the referenced paragraphs of the originally filed specification what the technical improvement is or where this alleged technical improvement is reflected in the claim language. Specifically, [0078] of the originally filed specification states:
“In further examples, to substantially reduce, or eliminate, such bias, FI computing system 130 may perform operations that infer an appropriate for one or more ground-truth label for each, or a subset, of the rejected, or approved but unfunded applications, characterized by second population 146 based on an application of a rules-based inferencing process to data, such as batch credit-bureau data, characterizing an applicant (or applicants) involved in corresponding ones of the rejected, or approved but unfunded, applications”.
This sentence from the specification is a run-on sentence with little comprehensibility, and it is not clear how this sentence supports the assertion of technical improvement in the claim language. It is also not clear where the technical improvement is reflected in the claim language. At best, the amended limitation “the inferred ground-truth labels being generated based on explainability data characterizing an impact of at least one first sequential feature on an output of the artificial- intelligence process and on third-party information associated with the datasets” suggests that a particular type of data or inferred ground truth label is generated based on two types of data, but this detail in the claim language does not suggest that a technical improvement is reflected from the use of this particular data. This additional element thus amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by merely elaborating on the data used in the performance of the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Applicant has failed to identify any other additional elements in the claim language beyond the identified abstract ideas that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or reflect a technical improvement. It appears that any alleged technical improvement is reflected in the abstract idea of the claim – predicting the likelihood of an occurrence of an event. Abstract ideas alone cannot reflect a technical improvement. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements”) and MPEP § 2106.05(I) (“An inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’”).
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant argues “the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is also improper because Applicant's claims amount to "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea … the above-quoted elements recited by Applicant's independent claims, at least when taken collectively as a whole even in unamended form, extend beyond any well-understood, routine, conventional, or human-performable activities, and represent a specific, technological and non-abstract improvement to an existing technology or technical field, i.e., the existing, computer-implemented processes that improves a predictive accuracy of a trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process and reduces bias toward prior adjudication strategies … Applicant's claims involve an "inventive concept" under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims recite features that exceed "well-understood, routine, conventional activities" already known in the industry”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has again failed to identify any other additional elements in the claim language beyond the identified abstract ideas that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, reflect a technical improvement, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas. Any alleged technical improvement appears to be reflected in the abstract idea of the claim.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection, and the 35 USC § 101 rejection of the pending claims is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 7/31/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection of the pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The closest prior art of record Even et al. (US 20230410208 A1) discloses a ML-based, predictive, digital underwriting system and corresponding method providing an automated parameter-driven predictive underwriting process based on measured probability values, but fails to explicitly disclose the artificial-intelligence process being trained using datasets associated with inferred ground-truth labels, the inferred ground-truth labels being generated based on explainability data characterizing an impact of at least one first sequential feature on an output of the artificial- intelligence process and on third-party information associated with the datasets, all taught in the context of the remaining claim limitations and when considered as whole, as claimed.
Further, Leung et al. (US 20220327625 A1) discloses methods and systems that predict occurrences of targeted attrition events using trained artificial-intelligence processes and make use of explainability data, but fails to explicitly disclose the artificial-intelligence process being trained using datasets associated with inferred ground-truth labels, the inferred ground-truth labels being generated based on explainability data characterizing an impact of at least one first sequential feature on an output of the artificial- intelligence process and on third-party information associated with the datasets, all taught in the context of the remaining claim limitations and when considered as whole, as claimed.
Accordingly, the 35 USC § 103 rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Leung et al. (US 20220327625 A1).
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 Brent Hoover whose telephone number is (303)297-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 MST.
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached on 571-270-3169. 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.
/BRENT JOHNSTON HOOVER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights