DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on December 23, 2025, for the application with serial number 18/381,391.
Claims 1 and 12 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Interview
The Examiner acknowledges the interview conducted on September 29, 2025, in which the subject matter eligibility of the claims was discussed.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the present claims recite an improvement in cryptographic communications. Specifically, the Applicant contends that the use of a prime number sieve renders the claims eligible. The Applicant compares the present claims to the claims from Example 41, because the claims in Example 41 and the present claims both use prime number sieves. See Remarks p. 15. In response, the Examiner points out that Example 41 recites the very idea of a prime number sieve. In contrast, the present claims recite the use of prime number sieve for its intended purpose in a conventional manner. At best, the use of the prime number sieve amounts to an additional element that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The use of the prime number sieve provides no unexpected benefits, and the result of using the prime number sieve is predictable. The analysis, below, treats the prime number sieve as an ineligible mathematical concept, at least because the subject matter of the claims is primarily focused on scoring user engagements for the purposes of clustering. See Specification abstract and ¶[0007]. The prime number sieve is used in conjunction with the clustering and scoring to create user cohorts. See Exemplary independent claim 1. Contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, the mathematical techniques used in the present claims are the end goal of the present invention. The presently claimed invention is focused on creating cohorts of users. Security through cryptographic means is tangential to the inventive concept. The use of the prime number sieve appears to be a drafting technique. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The Applicant additionally contends that the claims are subject matter eligible because the use of an in-memory lookup structure is not conventional. See Remarks p. 17. In response, the Examiner submits that there is nothing unusual about storing data in-memory. The Examiner notes that the limitation being relied upon for eligibility is a negative limitation: “the prime number sieve being stored in the memory device as an in-memory lookup structure accessed directly without external keystore I/O.” See exemplary independent claim 1. The alternative expressed in the negative limitation appears to be less conventional than what is positively recited – an in-memory lookup. Again, the Examiner reiterates that the amended features appear to be a drafting effort designed to render the claims eligible. The inventive concept of the present claims has nothing to do with memory structures – the majority of the Specification discussed the scoring of customer interactions for the purposes of clustering cohorts.
The Applicant additionally submits that the analysis, below, is improper. In response, the Examiner submits that each and every limitation of the claims has been considered in arriving at a conclusion of ineligibility. Additional elements outside the scope of the abstract idea have been considered, but they have been found to amount to generic computer hardware an a machine learning algorithm.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and maintained.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Although claims(s) 1-20 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to computing an interest score and using an interest score to credential users (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “compute an interest score . . . and compare said interest score [ ] to a dynamically learned threshold;” and “instantiate[ ] . . . a system-hosted authenticated digital communications channel”), an abstract idea. Mathematical concepts are ineligible abstract ideas, including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Certain methods of organizing human activity are also ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: [1] “continuously perform a streaming ingestion;” [2] “obtain a prime number sieve;” [3] “continuously encode the real-time digital interaction stream . . . to each of said plurality of prime numbers;” [4] “continuously string a resulting plurality of encoded symbols;” [5] “continuously multiply a resulting plurality of encoded prime numbers;” [6] “obtain a noise score and a focus score in relation to [ ] users;” [7] “compute an interest score . . . and compare said interest score [ ] to a dynamically learned threshold;” [8] “instantiate[ ] . . . a system-hosted authenticated digital communications channel;” [9] “issu[e] credentials [sic] a plurality of members;” [10] “monitor[ ] the real-time stream;” [11] “modulat[e] the credentials to modify membership in the channel;” [12] “compar[e] outcomes from previous cohort interactions;” and [13] “execut[e] a reinforcement-learning logic.” Steps [1]-[7] are steps for computing an interest score and comparing the interest score to a threshold that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of computing an interest score. Steps [8]-[12] are steps for credentialing users that are part of the abstract ideas of using an interest score to credential users. The dependent claims further recite steps for manipulating data that are part of the abstract ideas of computing an interest score and using an interest score to credential users. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to performing a calculation to evaluate the relevance of user activity related to advertising and marketing content to determine a group to which users belong.
Under step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (a computer system with a memory device, computer readable medium, and processor in independent claims 1 and 12). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). The claims do recite the use of reinforcement learning, but the abstract idea of using an interest score to credential users is generally linked to an environment using reinforcement learning for implementation. Therefore, the use of reinforcement learning merely amounts to a technological environment for implementing the abstract idea that does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the recited abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(h). The claims require no more than a generic computer (a computer system with a memory device, computer readable medium, and processor in independent claims 1 and 12) to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
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 RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624