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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the March 30th, 2026 Office action, claims 1, 10, 11, 15-18 and 20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and stand rejected.
This Office action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-16 of the Remarks, filed on June 23rd, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 23rd, 2026, regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to a practical application because the claimed category merging engine simplifies the feature space of a predictive model by reducing the total number of categories while maintaining predictive performance, thereby reducing computational overhead.
Although the claims recite identifying and merging categories associated with a categorical predictor, the claims remain directed to evaluating data relationships, testing candidate merge strategies, selecting a preferred merge based on predictive accuracy, and updating category assignments. These limitations constitute data analysis and mathematical optimization of a predictive model. The additional recitation that the resulting feature space contains fewer categories describes the result of the analytical process rather than a specific technological improvement in the operation of a computer or other technology.
The claims do not recite a particular improvement to processor operation, memory management, data storage, network communication, or another computer technology. Instead, the generic processor performs the recited analytical operations to improve the predictive model itself. Improving the organization of categories or the predictive performance of a model does not, by itself, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the amendments do not alter the eligibility analysis, and the claims remain directed to a judicial exception without reciting additional elements sufficient to integrate that exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
Independent claims 1, 10, and 17 recite a method, computer program product, and system, respectively, and therefore fall within the statutory categories of process, manufacture, and machine. Eligibility analysis is required because the claims may be directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A — Prong One
The claims recite a judicial exception in the form of mathematical concepts and mental processes. In particular, the claims recite operations including identifying valid pairs of categories associated with a categorical predictor, testing candidate merge strategies, evaluating the effect of candidate mergers on predictive model accuracy, selecting a merger based on the evaluation, and merging categories to form a hybrid category. These limitations recite collecting, evaluating, comparing, and manipulating information to optimize a predictive model, which constitute abstract mathematical analysis and evaluation.
Step 2A — Prong Two
The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the amended claims improve machine-learning technology by simplifying the feature space of a predictive model through reducing the number of categories while maintaining predictive performance, thereby reducing computational overhead. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Although the amended claims now specify that the identified valid pairs are categories associated with a categorical predictor and that the resulting merger simplifies the feature space by reducing the total number of categories, these limitations merely define the data being analyzed and the intended result of the analytical process. The claims continue to recite identifying candidate category pairs, testing merge strategies, evaluating predictive accuracy, selecting a preferred merger, and merging categories based on that evaluation. These limitations remain directed to mathematical analysis and optimization of a predictive model rather than an improvement to computer technology itself.
The claims do not recite a specific improvement to processor operation, memory management, data storage, network communication, or another technological component. Nor do the claims recite a particular technological mechanism by which the asserted reduction in computational overhead is achieved. Instead, the processor performs the recited analytical operations using generic computer components to improve the predictive model itself. Improving the organization of categories or the predictive performance of a model does not, without more, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
The claims also fail to recite an inventive concept.
The additional elements—including the processor, memory, computer-readable medium, and program instructions—are generic computer components performing their ordinary functions. The additional limitations relating to categories associated with categorical predictors, predictive accuracy, feature-space simplification, and hybrid categories merely specify additional analytical rules for performing the abstract idea and do not constitute significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, the claims do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims (2-9, 11-16, 18-20) do not alter the eligibility analysis. The additional limitations relating to idle categories, zero-count categories, ordinal and non-ordinal predictors, accuracy-change calculations, selection of mergers based on accuracy impact, and iterative merging merely further define the abstract data-analysis process recited in the independent claims. These additional limitations do not improve computer functionality, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1-20 represents an abstract idea.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mac Manus et al. (‘781) discloses categorical input machine learning models.
Fang et al. discloses predictive data analysis with categorical input data.
Conclusions/Points of Contacts
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 JORGE A CASANOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (EST).
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at (571) 270-1760. 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.
/JORGE A CASANOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights