DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 13-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 filed July 6, 2026 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-14 are directed to a method, claims 15-17 are directed to a system, and claims 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, all of which are statutory. Claims 1-20 are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1, 15, and 18 recite an abstract idea of risk score evaluation using agent-based simulations.
The independent claims 1, 15, and 18 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
generating… and using a risk prediction model, a plurality of predictive risk scores for an agent dataset associated with an agent-based simulation, wherein the agent dataset comprises a plurality of synthetic agents based on a real-world dataset that is limited with respect to a target risk refinement model;
generating… a plurality of simulated risk scores for the agent dataset based on the plurality of predictive risk scores and a first performance metric corresponding to the risk prediction model;
generating… a plurality of refined risk scores for the agent dataset based on the plurality of simulated risk scores and a second performance metric corresponding to the target risk refinement model; and
generating… a return metric for the target risk refinement model based on one or more iterations of the agent-based simulation, wherein an iteration of the agent-based simulation is performed using the plurality of predictive risk scores, the plurality of simulated risk scores, and the plurality of refined risk scores, thereby enabling an evaluation of the target risk refinement model under sparse-data conditions.
7. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, risk score evaluation using agent-based simulations falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites risk score evaluation with agent-based simulations with generally recited computer elements such as a memory and one or more processors, which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for risk score evaluation using agent-based simulations. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of one or more processors and memory to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
10. Regarding dependent claims 2-14, 16-17, and 19-20, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of risk score evaluation using agent-based simulations, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Examiner Notes
12. Claims 1-20 are novel and unobvious over the prior art, however, there remains a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 4 (dependent on 2), 6 (dependent on 5), 8 (dependent on 7), 11 (dependent on 10 and 9), and 13 (dependent on 12) together into the independent claims. The Examiner suggests incorporating how the machine learning model is trained and re-trained in an unique manner. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
13. After further search and consideration, the most pertinent U.S. prior art was found to be Dervieux (US 2024/0395384) and Dambrot et al (US 2023/0269272). Dervieux (US 2024/0395384) is directed to a patient centric precision model. Dambrot et al (US 2023/0269272) is directed to implementing an artificial intelligence security platform.
14. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and NPL fail to disclose all of the limitations particularly:
generating, by one or more processors, a plurality of refined risk scores for the agent dataset based on the plurality of simulated risk scores and a second performance metric corresponding to a target risk refinement model; and
generating, by one or more processors, one or more return metrics for the target risk refinement model based on one or more iterations of the agent-based simulation, wherein an iteration of the agent-based simulation is performed using the plurality of predictive risk scores, the plurality of simulated risk scores, and the plurality of refined risk scores.
15. No prior art cited here or in any previous Office Action neither fully anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter present in the independent claims, either alone or in combination. The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed in the application, are novel and unobvious.
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
a) Argument #1: Ex parte Desjardins case
17. The applicant tries to use the Ex parte Desjardins case as an example, therefore creating a two part test for reciting an improvement to the technical field. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Desjardins contains specific limitations related to a technical problem in machine learning (catastrophic forgetting). The decision was calling it overbroad to equate those limitations with any high level machine learning algorithm. The instant application does not contain any limitations related to technological improvements to machine learning and as such is more similar to the facts of Example 47 claim 2 of the July 2024 examples (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf).
18. Risk score evaluation with agent-based simulations is an improvement in an abstract idea, which does not provide an improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a), which states: However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. The recited software in the claim is recited at a high level and per MPEP 2106.05(f) that is not sufficient to provide a practical application. With respect to the machine learning elements, the more recent 2024 guidance suggests that training a machine learning is a recitation of mathematical concepts and high level application of machine learning does not provide a practical application. Regarding the software and computer elements, these elements are used in their ordinary capacity and MPEP 2106.05(f) states: Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
19. First up is the first test, which is whether the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a) establishes the requirements for “Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field” and states: “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement… Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology… the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology… the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification… An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome”.
20. MPEP 2106.05(a) also states that the following are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality: “Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer” (see FairWarning case) and “Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality” (citing BSG Tech case). The examiner holds that the Specification is conclusory and that the applicant does not provide sufficient technical details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing a technical improvement relating to how risk score evaluation with agent-based simulations is improved. The applicant does not provide technical details of how to do risk score evaluation with agent-based simulations. The applicant merely argues that there is an improvement in efficiency with no actual technical improvements, just because a system uses fewer computational resources does not equate to an improvement in technology. Therefore, the examiner holds that the applicant does not provide sufficient technical details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing a technical improvement or an improvement in technology.
21. Next is test 2, which is whether or not the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. As discussed before, the claims are directed to an abstract idea of risk score evaluation with agent-based simulations, which falls under commercial or legal interactions, or could also fall under fundamental economic practices. In MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), it describes concepts relating to managing relationships or transactions between people, or satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation, as being under certain methods of organizing human activity. Risk score evaluation with agent-based simulations would fall under sales activities or behaviors and business relations, therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The applicant does not recite any additional elements other than the additional elements of a processor and memory with no detailed technical disclosure of any special features or benefits relating to Applicant’s inventive concept. Applicant does not claim any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
22. It must be noted that the applicant does not claim a reduction of computational load or complexity or increasing efficiencies. Additionally, the applicant does not claim any metrics to measure an improvement to picking efficiency or computational complexity or computational load, nor teach hardware or software capable of measuring any of this data. Applicant’s claimed elements may or may not have the incidental effect of reducing complexity of a problem simply because they remove data but this merely improves the data and does not improve the processing of the data or improve computer technology or any other technology. The applicant thus does not claim a technical improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a). Applicant appears to be claiming a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art” under MPEP 2106.05(a) and this does not provide an improvement to technology.
a) Response to 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments Step 2A, Prong 1
23. The Examiner respectfully disagrees in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, therefore it is maintained. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of risk score evaluation with agent-based simulation, which falls under commercial or legal interactions, or could also fall under fundamental economic practices. In MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), it describes concepts relating to managing relationships or transactions between people, or satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation, as being under certain methods of organizing human activity. Risk score evaluation with agent-based simulations would fall under sales activities or behaviors and business relations, therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
b) Response to 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments Step 2A, Prong 2
24. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to improving the functioning of the computer/technology/technical field, the claims recite the additional elements of a memory and processor, and they are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore are merely using computer processing components for directional guidance using visual features, images, and item identifiers. After further review of the Specification, there is no disclosure of technical enhancements to any of the computing components, as in multiple instances of the Specification it discloses generally recited elements. Interpreting the claims in view of the Specification, the claims recite the judicial exception are mere instructions to apply the exception of risk score evaluation with agent-based simulations (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The elements recited above do not recite and are not directed to any elements or functions that improve underlying technology.
25. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), it states: “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).”
26. Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., the additional elements of a memory and processor, that are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to risk score evaluation with agent-based simulations. The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., risk score evaluation with agent-based simulations, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field. Therefore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application either by improvement to a computer/technology/technical field.
27. The claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. Claims are directed to an abstract idea of risk score evaluation with agent-based simulations. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, the Specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems or technology. Applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
c) Argument #3: Applicant argues that the claim elements are significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B
28. Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claims 1, 15, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
29. Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
30. Here the only additional elements recited in claims 1 and 16 beyond the abstract idea are: the additional elements of a memory and processor, i.e., generic computer components. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
31. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of the independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
33. 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).
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
37. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights