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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art of record if amended/rewritten to overcome the applicable rejection(s) and/or objection(s) set forth in this Office action because the examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art, found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art.
Abstract Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the amendment to the abstract filed on 04/06/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the abstract. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “includes a compute, using a trained multiphase neural network architecture including a first prediction head model and second prediction head model”. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Furthermore, the language of the abstract merely duplicates the claim language and is not in narrative form. Moreover, over the prosecution history of the application, the claim language is likely to change, and therefore the original abstract language is likely not accurately summarize the claimed invention.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
As per claim 5, in ll. 2, “LSTM comprises a residual long short-term memory (LSTM)” should be “LSTM network comprises a residual LSTM network”. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claim 12, it is objected to because in ll. 9-10, “a server external to the system” should be “a server external to the display device”. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore objected to using the same rationale. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A system for machine learning architecture for prospective resource allocations comprising:
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
derive input features based on the sequence of group-related data records representing the historical resource allocations (abstract idea mental process i.e., at least [00153] of the instant specification states that deriving input features can include identifying or indicating records representing infrequent bill payments for credit card accounts, several missed payments or extra payments, and/or unclear billing intervals which can be performed mentally);
determine, using the multiphase neural network architecture, a first selection score associated with the predicted resource allocation amount and a second selection score associated with the predicted resource allocation date (abstract idea mental process);
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, 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:
a processor (generic computing components); and
a memory device coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions (generic computing components) that, when executed, configure the processor to:
receive a plurality of data records representing historical resource allocations from a user account associated with a first identifier over a historical time period (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
pre-process the plurality of data records with a group key to generate at least one sequence of group-related data records representing resource consumption events associated with a second identifier (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of generating data/information);
input the derived input features into multiphase neural network architecture including: a long short-term memory (LSTM) network, a first prediction head model and a second prediction head model (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of inputting/saving/storing/recording data/information), where the first prediction head model generates a predicted resource allocation amount and the second prediction head model generates a predicted resource allocation date for the predicted resource allocation amount which is predicted to be allocated subsequent to the sequence of group-related data records (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of generating data/information);
when the first or second selection score is above a minimum threshold, cause to display, at a display device, the associated resource allocation amount or date corresponding to the second identifier (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
a processor; and
a memory device coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the processor to:
receive a plurality of data records representing historical resource allocations from a user account associated with a first identifier over a historical time period (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
pre-process the plurality of data records with a group key to generate at least one sequence of group-related data records representing resource consumption events associated with a second identifier (extra-solution activity of generating data/information);
input the derived input features into multiphase neural network architecture including: a long short-term memory (LSTM) network, a first prediction head model and a second prediction head model (extra-solution activity of inputting/saving/storing/recording data/information), where the first prediction head model generates a predicted resource allocation amount and the second prediction head model generates a predicted resource allocation date for the predicted resource allocation amount which is predicted to be allocated subsequent to the sequence of group-related data records (extra-solution activity of generating data/information);
when the first or second selection score is above a minimum threshold, cause to display, at a display device, the associated resource allocation amount or date corresponding to the second identifier (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed, configure the processor to:
cause to render, at the display device, one or more graphical user interface elements displaying a user-adjustable parameter for controlling a resource consumption associated with a resource account associated with the second identifier (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information);
receive at least one user input representative of a value for the user-adjustable parameter (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
generate a command signal based on the value for the user-adjustable parameter (extra-solution activity of generating data/information); and
transmit the command signal to a server external to the system for controlling the resource consumption associated with the resource account (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Claim 3. The system of claim 2, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed, configure the processor to:
generate one or more recommended values for the user-adjustable parameter based on the historical resource allocations from the user account (extra-solution activity of generating data/information); and
cause to render, at the display device, the one or more graphical user interface elements displaying the user-adjustable parameter for controlling the resource consumption associated with the resource account with the one or more recommended values (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Claim 4. The system of claim 2, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed, configure the processor to:
compute, using the multiphase neural network architecture, an updated predicted resource allocation amount associated with the first identifier and the second identifier based on the derived input features and the value for the user-adjustable parameter for controlling the resource consumption associated with the resource account (abstract idea mental process); and
cause to display, at the display device, the updated predicted resource allocation amount (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Claim 5. The system of claim 1, wherein the LSTM comprises a residual long short-term memory (LSTM) network including blocks of stacked LSTMs with residual connections between blocks (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 6. The system of claim 5, wherein the multiphase neural network architecture is configured to receive, as an input, a feature vector comprising a concatenation of a plurality of input features (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein during training of the multiphase neural network architecture, the multiphase neural network architecture is configured to generate a plurality of outputs associated with one or more time steps, the plurality of outputs comprising: a predicted head amount, a predicted auxiliary amount, an amount selection score, a predicted head date-delta, a predicted auxiliary date-delta, and a date selection score (extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
Claim 8. The system of claim 7, wherein the training of the multiphase neural network architecture is based on the predicted auxiliary amount and the predicted auxiliary date-delta (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed, configure the processor to:
generate one or more adjusted prospective resource allocations corresponding to the second identifier based on self-attention operations, wherein the adjusted prospective resource allocations comprise a dynamic weighted average of prior observed resource allocation values (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 10. The system of claim 9, wherein a plurality of weights in the dynamic weighted average are determined based on a current output representation of the multiphase neural network architecture at a current time step and one or more previous output representations of the neural network architecture from one or more previous time steps (abstract idea mental process).
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Applicant’s Reply Not Fully Responsive
The reply filed on 04/06/2026 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b)-(c) because they amount to a general allegation that the dependent claims are eligible without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims makes the dependent claims eligible in view of the rejections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such rejections. Applicant’s Remarks are only directed to the independent claims and fail to address any of the abstract idea rejections to the dependent claims. Even if an independent claim is deemed eligible then it does not necessarily mean that all of the dependent claims are also eligible. See 37 CFR 1.111. The response appears to be bona fide, but through an apparent oversight or inadvertence, consideration of some matter or compliance with some requirement has been omitted. Applicant is required to supply the omission or correction to thereby provide a full response to the instant Office action.
Response to Amendment
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
As per claims 1-20, they contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendment filed 04/06/2026 introduces new matter into the claims. The added material to the claims which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “input the derived input features into multiphase neural network architecture including: a long short-term memory (LSTM) network, a first prediction head model and a second prediction head model, where the first prediction head model generates a predicted resource allocation amount and the second prediction head model generates a predicted resource allocation date for the predicted resource allocation amount which is predicted to be allocated subsequent to the sequence of group-related data records”. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 10-11, Applicant argues that the instant claims facilitate an improvement of the model itself and do not make any sense outside the context of computerized resource modeling, database activities, and device communications. The examiner respectfully traverses. 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). 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 and the claim itself must reflect the improvement in technology (emphasis added by the examiner). An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology (emphasis added by the examiner). An important consideration in determining whether a claim is directed to an improvement in 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. 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). To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the instant claims “do not make any sense outside the context of computerized resource modeling, database activities, and device communications”, the examiner respectfully submits that it appears that Applicant is merely making a conclusory statement. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection (see MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art). The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. Moreover, Applicant asserts the “improvement” rationale under Step 2A Prong One. This is incorrect because Applicant is alleging that the supposed improvement is directed to the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s attempt to show that the recited abstract idea is the improvement is not persuasive. An “improved” abstract idea is still an abstract idea nonetheless and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. The examiner respectfully submits that an improvement in computer functionality is a reason for supporting the significance of the additional elements in a claim (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, and not Step 1 or Step 2A Prong One). In other words, the “improvement” rationale is reserved for evaluating whether the additional elements and not the abstract idea itself amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05). Applicant is reminded that the abstract idea itself cannot be directed to an improvement in computer functionality (Step 2A Prong One). Rather only the additional elements can qualify as significantly more (i.e., the improvement) than the abstract idea itself (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims are not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities because no capability of the computer is being improved in any way. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 11 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the instant claims describe a specific manner of pre-processing data records using a group key and is similar to the Dejardins case. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s attempt to show that the recited abstract idea is very narrow and specific is not persuasive. A specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. The claims in the Dejardins case include training a machine learning model and optimizing an objective function. Both of which are absent from the instant claims. Thus, the claims of the Dejardins case are distinct from those of the instant application. Applicant has failed to explain how the instant claims are similar to those in the Dejardins case and instead merely makes a conclusory statement. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Whiting et al. (US 9,928,473) disclose booster centric resource allocation.
Wu et al. (US 2023/0367649) disclose virtual desktop interface resource allocation.
Vinson et al. (US 2023/0305901) disclose automatic compute environment scheduling using machine learning.
Tomaselli et al. (US 2020/0252224) disclose secure accelerated resource allocation.
Sundaresan et al. (US 2022/0036194) disclose deep neural network optimization for machine learning model scaling.
Sukhi et al. (US 2020/0151014) disclose forecasting upcoming resource requirements.
Ma et al. (US 10,942,776) disclose dynamic resource allocation for application containers.
Karri et al. (US 2023/0015531) disclose dynamic allocation of computing resources.
Fontoura et al. (US 2019/0163517) disclose predictive rightsizing for virtual machines in cloud computing systems.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 571-272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights