DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-8, 11 and 12 were amended or newly added in the Applicant’s filing(s) on 2/18/2026.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing(s) on 2/18/2026.
3. Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted in the Applicant’s filing(s) on 7/18/2023, as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
4. Drawings
Drawings submitted in the Applicant’s filing(s) on 7/18/2023 are approved.
5. Specification
Specification amendments submitted in the Applicant’s filing(s) on 2/18/2026, as the amendments pertain to correcting typographic errors and do not change the scope of the claimed invention.
6. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if,” “may,” “might,” “can,” and “could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. See MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and/or boldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 1 recites a system to perform the operations comprising:
displaying, on a display, a first area for representing reference indicators and a second area, adjacent to the first area, for showing an evaluation of each combination variable; and
displaying, in the first area, reference indicators for the combination variable, wherein the reference indicators include information on the category variable and the support variable constituting the combination variable.
Claim elements (i.e., reference indicators) pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claims 6 and 11 have a similar interpretation.
Claim 1 recites a system to perform the operations comprising:
evaluating the evaluation target based on the plurality of combination variables;
selecting, from the plurality of combination variables, a combination variable that satisfies a reference;
displaying, on a display, a first area for representing reference indicators and a second area, adjacent to the first area, for showing an evaluation of each combination;
displaying, in the first area, reference indicators for the combination variable, wherein the reference indicators include information on the category variable and the support variable constituting the combination variable; and
displaying, in the second area, an evaluation result of the combination variable.
Examiner notes that the claim, as written, recites evaluating the evaluation target based on the plurality of combination variables. As such the evaluation result (i.e., resulting evaluation of the evaluation target) is based on a plurality of combination variables (i.e., an evaluation based on the plurality of combination variables en mass) not based on a singular combination variable.
As such, the claim elements (i.e., evaluation result of the combination variable) pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claims 6 and 11 have a similar interpretation.
7. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system to perform a method, a system executing instructions to perform a method and/or a computer-readable medium containing instructions, when executed, causes a computer to perform a method comprising:
acquiring category variable specification information that specifies at least one of a plurality of indicators related to an evaluation target as a category variable;
selecting, for each category variable, a support variable being a part of the plurality of indicators;
generating a first model … by using a combination variable being a combination of the category variable and the indicator different from the category variable as an explanatory variable and using an evaluation result of an evaluation target as an objective variable; and
acquiring, for each of the plurality of the combination variables, a first influence degree indicating magnitude of an influence of the combination variable on accuracy of the first model, and selecting the support variable from among the plurality of indicators by using the first influence degree;
evaluating the evaluation target based on the plurality of combination variables;
selecting, from the plurality of combination variables, a combination variable that satisfies a reference,
displaying, … , a first area for representing reference indicators and a second area, adjacent to the first area, for showing an evaluation of the combination variable,
displaying, in the first area, reference indicators for the combination variable, wherein the reference indicators include information on the category variable and the support variable constituting the combination variable, and
displaying, in the second area, an evaluation result of the combination variable.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to construct a financial model which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Examiner notes that the claims are to be construed utilizing the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The specification recites that at least one purpose of the model is to determine an evaluation result of “a bankruptcy probability” pertaining to an evaluation target of “a company” utilizing category and support variables which are “financial indicators.” See specification, para. 34-37.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification the claimed invention is generating a financial model to determine the probability of bankruptcy.
Examiner notes that determining the probability of bankruptcy is mitigation of financial risk and that the mitigation of financial risk is a court-provided example of a fundamental economic practice. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A), citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. (2014).
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest interpretation, also cover a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” is a court-provided example of a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, also recite a mathematical concept (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) which is an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas, as the limitations are determining the mathematical relationships (e.g., magnitude of influence) between variables and indicators. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a memory (Claim(s) 1), a processor (Claim(s) 1), a computer (Claim(s) 6 and 11), a display (Claim(s) 1, 6 and 11), machine learning (Claim(s) 1, 6 and 11) and a program (Claim(s) 11).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1, 6 and 11. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
No additional computer components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generically recited computer.
As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
8. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eder (US PG Pub. 2012/0066217).
Regarding Claim 6, Eder discloses a method comprising, by a computer:
acquiring category variable specification information (transaction data and descriptive data) that specifies at least one of a plurality of indicators related to an evaluation target as a category variable (item variable). (see para. 38-41 and 59-63);
selecting, for each category variable (item variable), a support variable (indicator) being a part of the plurality of indicators and forming a plurality of combination variables (composite variable, element combination or combinations of variables). (see para. 36, 38-41, 59-63 and 136);
in the selection processing, by the computer, generating a first model by performing machine learning (stepwise regression) by using a combination variable (composite variable or element combination) being a combination of the category variable and the indicator different from the category variable (mathematical combination of item variable and indicator) as an explanatory variable (to explain influences on performance) and using an evaluation result (amount of error) of an evaluation target as an objective variable (to determine model accuracy). (see para. 38-41, 59-63, 167 and 171); and
acquiring, for each of a plurality of the combination variables (composite variables), a first influence degree (correlation) indicating magnitude of an influence of the combination variable on accuracy of the first model, and selecting the support variable (item variable) from among the plurality of indicators by using the first influence degree (thereby selecting the variables that correlate most strongly with changes in the measure being analyzed.). (see para. 167 and 171).
evaluating the evaluation target (via associations) based on the plurality of combination variables. (see para. 138-139);
selecting, from the plurality of combination variables, a combination variable that satisfies a reference (via user acceptance). (see para. 138-139);
displaying, on a display, a first area for representing reference indicators and a second area for showing an evaluation (determined association) of each combination variable (via review data window). (see para. 139);
displaying, in the first area, reference indicators for the combination variable, wherein the reference indicators include information on the category variable and the support variable constituting the combination variable (see para. 144), and
displaying, in the second area, an evaluation result of the combination variable. (see para. 139).
Eder does not explicitly teach a method wherein the first displayed area is adjacent to the second displayed area.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to allow for any organization of the displayed data that the inventor desired. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 7, Eder discloses a method comprising:
generating a model by performing machine learning (stepwise regression) by using the plurality of indicators as explanatory variables (to explain influences on performance) and using the evaluation result (amount of error) as an objective variable (to determine model accuracy). (see para. 38-41, 59-63, 167 and 171); and
acquiring, for each of the plurality of indicators, an influence degree (correlation) indicating magnitude of an influence of the indicator on accuracy of the model, and selecting the category variable (indicator) from among the plurality of indicators by using the influence degree (thereby selecting the indicators that correlate most strongly with changes in the measure being analyzed.). (see para. 167 and 171).
Eder does not explicitly teach a method comprising a second model; or a second influence degree.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Eder by duplicating claim elements contained in Eder (e.g., generating a first model and acquiring a first influence degree based upon indicators of a plurality of indicators, as in Claim 7) to create additional claim elements (e.g., generating a second model and acquiring a second influence degree based upon other indicators of the plurality of indicators) wherein each additional claim element would serve the same function as the original claim element. In the combination each element, original element and additional element, would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. see MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding Claim 8, Eder discloses a method wherein:
the category variable specification information (transaction data and descriptive data) specifies a plurality of the category variables (item variables). (see para. 38-41 and 59-63); and
in the selection processing, by the computer:
generation of the plurality of combination variables (composite variables), generation of the first model, and acquisition of the first influence degree (correlation) are performed on each of the plurality of category variables (item variables). (see para. 38-41, 59-63, 167 and 171); and
the support variable (indicator) is selected by selecting the combination variable (composite variable) in which the first influence (correlation) degree satisfies a reference (strongest correlation to be deemed a performance driver). (see para. 167).
Regarding Claim 9, Eder discloses a method wherein:
the evaluation target (subject entity) is a company (Company or Acme). (see para. 13-19; Claim 3); and
each of the plurality of indicators is a financial indicator (e.g., revenue, risk, return). (see para. 13-19).
Regarding Claims 1-4 and 11-14, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Claim(s) 5, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eder, as applied to Claims 1, 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Zizzamia (US PG Pub. 2014/0200930).
Regarding Claim 10, Eder does not teach a method wherein the evaluation target is an individual; or at least one of the plurality of indicators is credit information, an income amount or a deposit amount of the individual.
Zizzamia discloses an indicator selection method wherein:
the evaluation target is an individual. (see para. 40); and
at least one of the plurality of indicators is credit information (Credit score), an income amount or a deposit amount of the individual. (see para. 40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Eder by expanding beyond analysis of a company’s financial status to incorporate analysis of an individual’s financial status, as disclosed by Zizzamia, thereby applying the analysis to another pool of evaluation targets.
Regarding Claims 10 and 15, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
8. Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite a mental process as it cannot be practically performed in the human mind and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong One of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, p. 10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) recites:
In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
The claimed invention recites the performance of a method comprising collecting information and performing computations based upon the received information. This method is a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind and is analogous to the mental process performed in Electric Power Group vs. Alstom, S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Examiner notes that the claimed invention recites “generating a first model by performing machine learning.”
Linear regression is a statistical method used to model and predict relationships between variables.
While linear regression is an old and well-known machine learning algorithm, linear regression predates the advent of computers, dating back to the 19th century.
Human beings can and have performed the generation of models by utilizing machine learning algorithms (e.g., linear regression) in the human mind, and using pen and paper.
Additionally, MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) recites:
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine 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. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
The claimed invention recites a mental process even though the claimed invention recites that the mental process is being performed on a computer. The claims merely recite that the “concept is 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.”
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites a practical application, specifically “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,” and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 10-11.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
Claim 1 is directed to a specific technical implementation that improves the functionality of the computer's data processing itself. Conventional techniques, which involved analyzing various indicators, were susceptible to the effects of the capturing excessive, irrelevant, and/or misleading indicators, which presented a problem of decreased evaluation accuracy. To address this problem (and others), one or more example embodiments consistent with claim 1 generate more accurate evaluation results by generating a machine learning model and combining applicable variables "category variable, support variable" based on an influence of the combination on accuracy of the first model, and subsequently analyzing the evaluation target based on said combination of variables. See Arguments, p. 11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
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. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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. – emphasis added.
The specification does not provide any evidence that there is a technical problem (i.e., a technology-based problem) to be solved. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that existing and conventional technology was not capable of performing the claimed process but for the claimed technology-based solution.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that the functionality of a computer or conventional technology (e.g., machine learning technology) have been improved, or their technological capabilities have been expanded beyond their existing capabilities.
In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals stated:
As an initial matter, it is true that the claims here are similar to the claims in the cases discussed above in the sense that the claims involve both a computer and the Internet. But these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – emphasis added.
In the instant case, the problem that the claimed invention is designed to overcome, increasing evaluation accuracy, is not a problem specifically arising from the realm of computers. This problem is a standard business problem that exists outside the realm of computers and existed before the age of computers.
The court in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA (Fed. Cir. 2016) stated:
The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. see Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
The claimed invention is not an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality. Rather, the claimed invention is applying a computer’s existing capabilities to implement a particular abstract idea. As in Electric Power Group, the focus of the claimed invention is not on an improvement in computers (i.e., machine learning technology) as tools but on improving an abstract idea that uses computers as tools.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the additional elements amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea and, as such, satisfies Step 2B of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 11-12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
§102/103 Rejection
In response to applicant's refutation that the prior art reference(s) offered by Examiner fails to disclose applicant's claim limitations, 37 CFR §1.111(b) recites:
A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Applicant has failed to specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the prior art references utilized.
9. 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 JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached at (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 July 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights