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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s July 21, 2025 filing with the USPTO. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. No claims are canceled, withdrawn, or newly added.
Response to Arguments
It is noted that Applicant does not address the 35 USC 112(b) of the previous Office action, see 04/21/25 OA at 7-8 on p. 12; therefore the rejection is maintained below.
Applicant's arguments filed 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
the alleged abstract idea is not recited in the claims. The claims are directed to a specifically claimed method of generating a storing specific data structures that reduces latency and processing when generating markets. Remarks p. 12.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. The specific limitations found to contain elements of the abstract ideas are highlighted in the previous Office action. It is further noted that data is abstract regardless of it structure or content.
For example a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In contrast see Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. MPEP 2106.05(a).
The specific data structures of claimed invention is more like Gottschalk. In that it is simply the aggregation of historical data to determine where to place debts to be collected. There is no allowable structure similar to that of Enfish. i.e. a self-referential database. The claims are not directed to concept that are non-abstract.
For all the reason give above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained.
As a whole, the claims recite subject matter directed to increasing the efficiency of a machine learning algorithm, which has been determined to be patent eligible as this is an improvement in computer functionality. Remarks p. 13.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant position. The claims do not partially point out how the learning algorithm is improved. The output is improved – that the debt is place with an entity most likely to collect the debt. In the claims, the machine learning model is simply applied to the data. The scrub process is applied to the output and it is unclear how this drive learning within the model.
For all of these reasons the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application of improving machine learning models, which improves the technical solution of automated debt allocation and collection. Remarks p.14.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant position. Applicant’s claims solve a business problem rather than a technical one. Debt collection is a fundamental economic process. Where the MPEP provides a "fundamental" is not used in the sense of necessarily being "old" or "well-known." See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1092 (Fed Cir. 2015) (a new method of price optimization was found to be a fundamental economic concept); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a "fundamental economic practice"); In re Greenstein, 774 Fed. Appx. 661, 664, 2019 USPQ2d 212400 (Fed Cir. 2019) (non-precedential) (claims to a new method of allocating returns to different investors in an investment fund was a fundamental economic concept).
For this reason the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
The instant claims recite subject matter directed to a scrubbing routine operable to evaluate the efficiency of the previous outcomes to verify that the outcome to the previous machine learning processing phase increased the efficiency of the debt collection process. Accordingly, the process continues when the increase is verified. Applicant submits that the pending claims are directed to an improved technical process by a machine learning architecture that allocates real debt collection resources across one or more debt collection entities. Remarks p. 16.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant position. The specification provides “a scrub process, where collected data is checked to determine if it is useable for the analysis solution 4. A check is performed for each action entity 14 to determine whether each has been processed at 162. A second check is performed to determine if there are acceptable quantifiers available for processing the input data at 164. If a response of "yes" is returned for a particular action entity on check 162 or a response of "no" is returned for a particular action entity on check 164, an exception file or report is issued at 166.” (Spec. [44])
As disclosed in the specification and in the claimed invention – one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that scrub process is done by a human – the yes/no response is returned. For this reason the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
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 (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity) without significantly more or a practical application.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-7 are to a non-transitory computer-readable media (manufacture), claims 8-14 are to a method (process), 15-20 are to a system (machine).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts.
Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
Where mathematical concepts are mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. (Currently Amended) One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method of prioritizing debt collection by a machine learning model, the method comprising:
quantifying performance of a plurality of collection entities by a performance quantifier;
quantifying previous collection attempts by a supply quantifier;
quantifying debt collection actions by an action quantifier;
performing a scrub process phase to determine an efficiency of a previous analysis, the scrub process phase comprising:
analyzing the plurality of collection entities and a previous allocation of action entities; and
determining that a previous output solution included a increase in the efficiency of the debt collection;
determining, by the action quantifier, a set of action entities comprising a plurality of debts to be collected;
reducing the set of action entities to a subset of action entities based on classifications by an iterative feature selection process determined in a training phase of a machine learning algorithm, the iterative feature selection process comprising:
obtaining a set of historical action entities;
calculating discrimination power of each variable associated with each historical action entity of the set of historical action entities, wherein the set of historical action entities comprise past results of a past machine learning model fed back to improve the machine learning model and actual past results from the set of action entities;
determining the classifications indicative of the set of action entities with a highest discrimination power;
storing the classifications indicative of the subset of action entities with the highest discrimination power;
storing the subset of action entities in a data table comprising a reduced dimensionality compared to the set of action entities;
determining compliance risk using the machine learning model comprising:
obtaining the subset of action entities;
determining performance quantifiers associated with the plurality of collection entities;
allocating at least one debt of the plurality of debts to at least one collection party of the plurality of collection entities based on the subset of action entities, the previous collection attempts, and the performance quantifiers;
obtaining historical data indicative of a history of the at least one collection party;
based on the historical data for the at least one collection party and at least one risk rule, generating a compliance data file comprising an additional history of compliance and a risk score for the at least one collection party, the risk score representing a likelihood of compliance violations based on a plurality of compliance standards;
if the risk score for the at least one collection party exceeds a predetermined threshold, generating a reallocation data file for reallocating the at least one debt based on at least one intervention rule for reducing the risk score; and
automatically reallocating the at least one debt based on the reallocation data file and automatically blocking debt collection resources from the at least one collection party;
if the risk score is below the predetermined threshold, balancing the debt collection resource of the at least one collection party based on traits of the at least one collection party; and
outputting an output solution for efficiency analysis by the scrub process phase.
The claims are directed towards the allocation of debt accounts among collection parties based on historical performance and risk of the collection party. The allocation and reallocation of debt for collection is a type of task assignment to a person to carried out, which is a formed of organizing human activity. Further debt collection is viewed as a fundament economic practice as well as a legal one.
Where the efficiency of the system is described as “All of the action quantifiers 12 affect how each performance entity 18 will perform if assigned to collect on the action entity 14, and are vital to efficiently assigning the account to be collected to the collection party best suited to collect that particular account” (Spec. [35]). The Office finds that any efficiency comes from the capabilities of the computing device rather than from the claimed invention.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The “obtaining”, “storing”, and “(re)allocating” elements are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. Where the computing elements of the claims are found to be general/generic purpose rather than special in nature (see for example Spec. [29]); thus not significantly more.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The independent claims have been to amended to recite “and automatically blocking debt collection resources from the at least one collection party; and if the risk score is below the predetermined threshold, balancing the debt collection resource of the at least one collection party based on traits of the at least one collection party” , see claim 1. Where the specification provides support in [86] “a collection agency may have a license to collect in State X expire. This threshold will be detected by the compliance management system 402 at 406 based upon the risk ruleset 405 including such a factor as exceeding the threshold. Placement of accounts in State X to the agency will be automatically shut off”, [87] “The agency can be removed from this suspended basis . . . if the agency's risk score drops below the threshold.”, and [88] “the position above where the collection agency loses its license in State X, would result in a recall of all affected debtor accounts to be reallocated to other agencies”.
As claimed it is unclear how or what is being balanced, where in the art balancing is understood to mean to spread work, resources, or risk across projects or teams or as in this case debts across collection agencies. The claim reads as if the balancing could be done across only one collection party. The specification is silent on “balancing” and discloses optimizes allocation, see for example [45] and [51].
It would be clearer is the amendment aligned with the specification. A suggestion “file and automatically blocking debt collection resources from the at least one collection party; and if the risk score is below the predetermined threshold, removing the automatically blocking of the debt collection resource of the at least one collection party based on traits of the at least one collection party.”
The dependent claims do not provide clarification to the issues raised above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wratten (US 2024/0221080 A1) teaches Marketplace Platform 120 as shown in FIG. 1B, or as a separate platform 121 as shown in FIG. 1C, the Recover Module/Subsystem is an extension of the existing Marketplace platform; however, it operates within the scope of outsourcing the collection activity to a third-party debt collection agency (also known as “vendor”).
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 FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623