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 the Claims
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 20 are amended. Claims 7 and 14 are canceled. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 16, filed 10/02/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office Action provides an “inability to decide whether the claims recite a mental process or a method of organizing human activity” and poses the question “How can something be both a mental process and a method of organizing human activity?” Applicant further attempts to distinguish that a mental process occurs in the human mind whereas a method of organizing human activity occurs within the physical world. This argument lacks merit. Examiner redirects applicant to MPEP §2106.04(a) which explicitly states that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping.
Moving forward to substantive arguments, applicant argues that the claimed subject matter is not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, it is clear from the specification (including the claim language) that the claims focus on an abstract idea, and not an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The specification in [0002] discloses “The proposed solution involves leveraging data from individual applicants and cross-referencing it against various relationship probability areas. The system would then generate recommendations, using confidence and probability metrics derived from intelligent analyses of the applicant's background against extensive existing COI datasets within the entity. The goal would be to guide entities based on this comprehensive probability analysis. This system would not only benefit the organization but also the applicants by safeguarding collected data via use of industry leading data storage and transmission security standards.” Further [0005] provides “The present invention includes a uniquely designed intelligent engine which connects to backend data engines to facilitate analysis of incoming and outgoing data in order to perform specific analyses. When considering one or more applicants, potential vendors, partners, employees, or investors, entities may utilize the present invention, and in particular, the Conflict of Interest (COI) solution to assess various relationship domains using a probability and impact- based approach. The invention's rules engine, matches applicant data with a comprehensive set of potential conflicts of interest sourced from available intelligence. It then confirms these matches using stochastic metrics to recommend the course of action with the least associated probability, from both an organizational and individual perspective. These results are provided to via API or displayed on a user interface for transparency. Over time, the system intelligently adapts to emerging conflicts of interest and keeps pace with the constantly evolving applicant pools and business conditions of employers.” The claims are drawn towards assessing or identifying potential conflicts of interest and generating recommendations based on the potential conflicts, and directly corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activities (managing personal interactions, relationships, etc.), as evidenced by limitations detailing identifying a potential conflict of interest by comparing the applicant data with the COI dataset and validating the identified conflict of interest, calculating a quantifiable probability metric related to the potential conflict of interest, wherein the quantifiable probability metric comprises a probability of conflict from both an organizational and individual perspective, and generating a recommendation based on the potential conflict of interest. When given their broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations recite managing personal interactions and relationships, and therefore subject matter that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process because the subject matter embraces activating an intelligence engine that analyzes incoming applicant data and COI datasets, identifying a potential conflict of interest using a classification algorithm, validating identified conflict of interest using a stochastic metrics via a rules engine, calculate a quantifiable probability metric using a machine learning model, generating a recommendation by generating actionable insights, and transmitting the recommendation to a user interface. Examiner disagrees. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. The claims recite limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing analyzing incoming applicant data and COI datasets to identify potential conflicts of interest, generating a recommendation based on the potential conflict corresponding to a course of action. The claims also correspond to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations), as evidenced by limitations such as using a classification algorithm to predict potential conflicts based on the applicant data and the COI datasets, validate the identified conflict of interest using stochastic metrics, wherein the stochastic metrics comprise at least probability density functions and statistical hypothesis testing methods; calculate, using the machine learning model, a quantifiable probability metric related to the potential conflict of interest. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, applicant argues that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the invention used computing architecture that employes a machine learning based intelligence engine interfacing with COI databases and a rules engine for validating personal conflicts. Examiner disagrees. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a processing device, non-transitory storage device (claim 1) or computer-readable medium (claim 8), a backend data engine, a database, a rules engine, an application programming interface (API), and a user interface. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Further, reducing errors in conflict detection and streamlining policy based decisions is not an improvement in technology or computers, but at best may indicate an improvement in the judicial exception itself, e.g., an improvement in the business process. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim 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. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. Additionally, the argument on reducing the amount of computing resources because the analysis performs fewer steps in unpersuasive. Computing overhead is merely a combination of excess computation time, usage, or memory required to perform the specific task, which further indicates that the alleged improvement is an improvement in the business process (being performed via computer) rather than an improvement in the actual computer itself. Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. Applicant’s claims are not similar to McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games American Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("McRO"). . McRO is directed to an improvement “providing an integrated method embodied in computer software…for the rapid, efficient lip synchronization and manipulation of character facial expressions[.]” Applicant’s claims are in no way analogous to McRo. The basis for the court’s decision was that the claims improved a computer-related technology by enabling the computer to perform functions that previously could not be performed by a computer and that required the subjective judgement of a human. The court emphasized both the specific claiming of the rules and the specification’s explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of these specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. This enabling of functionality that could not previously be performed by a computer was what amounted to the improvement in computer-related technology, not the simple recitation of a set of particular rules. Applicant’s claims are not analogous to a computer-related technology that enables new functions that a computer could not have previously performed. Applicant’s claims are also not similar to that of BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345. In BASCOM the court held that the claims amounted to statutory subject matter under step 2B because the additional elements within the claims were directed to a particular arrangement that yielded a technical improvement to the technology of filtering content. Specifically, the particular arrangement of the additional elements of controlled network access accounts, a local client computer, an Internet computer network, and a remote ISP server, provided an unconventional combination of elements based on the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location within the network, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user, where the filtering tool at the ISP was able to identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server and associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account. It was explained that this yielded a technical improvement because this particular arrangement of the known elements offered both the benefits of a filter on the local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server. Critically however, the court pointed to the disclosure of the application which explained why and how the particular claimed arrangement of these elements yielded the asserted technological improvement. No such unconventional and non-generic arrangement of otherwise known computer elements is argued with respect to the present claims, and examiner asserts that the present claims do not satisfy the rationale provided by the court.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 18, filed 10/02/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-6 recite a system (i.e. machine), claims 8-13 recite a program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture), and claims 15-20 recite method (i.e. process). Therefore claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitations: activate an [intelligence engine], wherein the [intelligence engine] generates an operable connection to a [backend data engine] to retrieve a [database] of conflict of interest (COI) datasets; analyze incoming applicant data and COI datasets via the [intelligence engine] by parsing the incoming applicant data and comparing against the COI datasets using a machine learning model; identify a potential conflict of interest by comparing the applicant data with the COI datasets, wherein identifying the potential conflict of interest comprises using a classification algorithm to predict potential conflicts based on the applicant data and the COI datasets: validate the identified conflict of interest using stochastic metrics via a [rules engine], wherein the stochastic metrics comprise at least probability density functions and statistical hypothesis testing methods; calculate, using the machine learning model, a quantifiable probability metric related to the potential conflict of interest, wherein the quantifiable probability metric comprises a probability of conflict from both an organizational and individual perspective; generate a recommendation based on the potential conflict of interest, such recommendation corresponding to a course of action according to the calculated probability, wherein the recommendation includes recommendations for mitigating the potential conflict of interest via dynamically generating actionable insights based on the output from the [intelligence engine], and wherein the recommendation comprises: a personalized report generated for a specific applicant and a detailed analysis of an overall conflict probability posed by the specific applicant with suggestions for managing the overall conflict probability; and transmit instructions to deliver, via an [application programming interface (API)], the recommendation, wherein delivering the recommendation further comprises displaying, via a [user interface], a detailed output including the potential conflict, the associated probability, and the recommended course of action. The claims are drawn towards assessing or identifying potential conflicts of interest and generating recommendations based on the potential conflicts, and directly corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activities (managing personal interactions, relationships, etc.), as evidenced by limitations detailing identifying a potential conflict of interest by comparing the applicant data with the COI dataset and validating the identified conflict of interest, calculating a quantifiable probability metric related to the potential conflict of interest, wherein the quantifiable probability metric comprises a probability of conflict from both an organizational and individual perspective, and generating a recommendation based on the potential conflict of interest. The claims also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing analyzing incoming applicant data and COI datasets to identify potential conflicts of interest, generating a recommendation based on the potential conflict corresponding to a course of action. The claims also correspond to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations), as evidenced by limitations such as using a classification algorithm to predict potential conflicts based on the applicant data and the COI datasets, validate the identified conflict of interest using stochastic metrics, wherein the stochastic metrics comprise at least probability density functions and statistical hypothesis testing methods; calculate, using the machine learning model, a quantifiable probability metric related to the potential conflict of interest. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: The features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a processing device, non-transitory storage device (claim 1) or computer-readable medium (claim 8), a backend data engine, a database, a rules engine, an application programming interface (API), and a user interface. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above and/or additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Allen (2009/0271348) which discloses an entity resolution system and resolves identity records and detects relationships between entities which may be performed using a pre-determined or configurable entity resolution rules. The entity resolution system may include an alert analysis system configured to allow analysts to review and analyze alerts, entities, and identities, as well as provide comments or assign a disposition to alerts generated by the entity resolution system. The prior art reference does not explicitly disclose the amened limitations of the applicant’s claims.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention include the publication “A Silicon Valley love triangle: Hiring algorithms, pseudo-science, and the quest for auditability” (Sloane, Mona; 2022) which generally discloses a matrix for auditing algorithmic decision-making systems (ADSs) used in the hiring domain. The publication contextualizes the use of the matrix within current and proposed regulatory regimes and within emerging hiring practices that incorporate algorithmic technologies. The prior art reference does not explicitly disclose the amened limitations of the applicant’s claims.
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628