DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is made final.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 7/22/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. See the updated rejection below.
Applicant argues that examiner does not clearly identify if certain claim elements are mathematical or mental processes. Examiner argues that many mathematical calculations are mentally performable, especially with the aid of pen and paper. For example, examiner argues that calculating the distance between two points (i.e., determining or generating a distance score or similarity score between lower-dimensional vector data) is a mathematical calculation or formula that is also a mental process.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, as the claims require the manipulation and analysis of data structures that are high volume and interrelated, such that it is impossible for a human to perform the manipulation and analysis mentally. Examiner argues that no claimed limitation describes the volume or interrelatedness of the clusters and/or feature sets.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite any specific mathematical formula/relationship/etc. – however, the examiner argues that the interpretation of determining… a similarity score, and especially the determining of “a centroid distance shift score” and “a current centroid distance score”, strongly suggests the straightforward application of some distance formula or calculation. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) recites: A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping.
Applicant argues that any alleged recites judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, describing a scenario in with historical data for a user is either missing or in low supply, causing unreliable predictions. However, the lack or absence of historical data is not recited in the claim. Applicant further argues that the ordered combination of limitations that were described as judicial exceptions enables the system to generate accurate predictions in the absence of historical data for a target user. Examiner argues that a technical benefit cannot come from the judicial exception alone (MPEP 2106.05(a), paragraph 6), only from the additional element(s) considered alone or in combination with the recited judicial exception. The examiner further argues that the recited communications hardware and circuitry only amount to an attempt to “apply” the judicial exception on generic computing components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and thus cannot provide a technical benefit.
Applicant’s arguments dated 7/22/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Due to the amendments, the 102 and 103 rejections have 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 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. Claim 1 recites: A method for generating a predicted effect for a secondary user in response to a synthetic stimulus, the method comprising: Claim 1 is directed to a process (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A prong 1: Does the claim recite a judicial exception? Claim 1 recites: identifying… and based on a feature set associated with the target user, a cluster for the target user (identifying clusters based on features of a user is a mental process, i.e., selecting a cluster); identifying… and based on the feature set associated with the target user, a digital twin for the target user (identifying a digital twin model based on features of a user is a mental process, i.e., selecting a model); generating… and based on a feature set associated with the digital twin of the target user, the predicted effect for the target user in response to the synthetic stimulus (predicting a result given an event and additional data can be performed mentally)… identifying…the secondary user (identifying a secondary user is a mental process); determining… a similarity score for the secondary user (determining a similarity score is a mental process or mathematical calculation); determining… based on an updated feature set for the target user, a centroid distance shift score for the target user (determining a centroid distance shift score is a mathematical calculation); determining… based on a feature set associated with the secondary user, a current centroid distance score for the secondary user (determining a current centroid distance score is a mathematical calculation); and generating… based on the similarity score, the centroid distance shift score, and the current centroid distance score, a predicted secondary effect for the secondary user (generating a predicted secondary effect (i.e., making a prediction) based on various scores is a mental process). These steps can be performed mentally or are mathematical calculations (Step 2A prong 1: YES).
Step 2A prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements? Do those additional elements, considered individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Claim 1 recites: receiving, by communications hardware, a synthetic behavior prediction request, wherein the synthetic behavior prediction request comprises (i) an indication of the synthetic stimulus and (ii) an indication of a target user… by cluster generation circuitry… by the cluster generation circuitry… by prediction generation circuitry… and providing, by the communications hardware, a predicted effect notification, wherein the predicted effect notification comprises the predicted effect for the target user in response to the synthetic stimulus… by the cluster generation circuitry… by the cluster generation circuitry… by the cluster generation circuitry and… by the cluster generation circuitry and… by the prediction generation circuitry and… Receiving a request that specifies input data, in this case user information and a “synthetic stimulus”, is extra-solution activity of data gathering that does not add a meaningful limitation to the effect prediction process. The various computing components including communications hardware, cluster generation circuitry and prediction generation circuitry are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions (see MPEP2006.05(f)). Providing a notification of the predicted result is insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting (Step 2A prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: These elements are recited at such a high level of generality that they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they only amount to data gathering or outputting without significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations, taken either alone or in combination, fail to provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7-8, they recite limitations which further narrow the abstract idea by specifying more details of the mental and mathematical process that occurs (Claim 2, generating a similarity score based on a comparison of features, determining a model that has an optimal similarity score, and determining if the score is above a threshold are mental processes – generating a similarity score may also be a mathematical calculation; Claim 3, determining if a model input type is associated with a synthetic input is a mental process, and determining an inferred effect in response to a stimulus based on model output is a mental process as well; Claim 4, determining if a similarity score is below a threshold is a mental process, and generating a new digital twin for a user that is associated with a feature set is recited at a high level of generality and provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)); Claim 5, predicting an effect for a target user based on a digital twin prediction is a mental process, while using a feature set and an input stimulus for the digital twin to generate an output prediction is recited at a high level of generality and provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)); Claim 7, the cluster that the secondary user belongs to does not influence the mental/math statuses of the processes of claim 1; Claim 8, updating a feature set based on a stimulus is a mental process, and classifying a user using the updated feature set is a mental process, i.e., predicting an effect).
Regarding claim 9, it is an apparatus that recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds – see above.
Regarding claims 10-13 and 15-16, they recite similar limitations to claims 2-5 and 7-8 respectively and are rejected on the same grounds – see above.
Regarding claim 17, it is a computer program product that recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds – see above.
Regarding claims 18-20, they recite similar limitations to claims 2-4 respectively and are rejected on the same grounds – see above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 allowed over prior art.
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 HARRISON CHAN YOUNG KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-0713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Cesar Paula can be reached at (571) 272-4128. 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.
/HARRISON C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2145
/CESAR B PAULA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights