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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 9/10/2026, and is a Final Office Action.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards an apparatus, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a method of organizing human activity – commercial interaction and fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: receive a communication through at least one of a direct method or an indirect method; extract a target belief from the communication; identify an attributable cause for the target belief based on the communication; compile one or more known causes of the target belief and determine that at least one of the one or more known causes is false; generate a score for a comparison between the attributable cause and each of the one or more known causes, the score is based on an amount of similarities between the attributable cause and the one or more known causes; when the score is greater then the predetermined threshold, determine that the attributable cause corresponds to the at least one of the one or more known causes that is false; and generate the interventions for presentation on the user interface based on the determination that the attributable cause corresponds to the at least one of the one or more known causes that is false; compare the score to a predetermined threshold; when the score is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold : receive an additional communication, extract a second target belief from the additional communication, and identify a second attributable cause for the second target belief based on the additional communication . Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “Embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to apparatuses, methods,
and programs for receiving communications from an individual and generating interventions for erroneous causes of belief, though an advertisement, for example. In embodiments, the apparatuses may receive communications from an individual through at least one of a direct method or indirect method and extract a target belief of the individual from the communications. In embodiments, the apparatus may identify an attributable cause that the individual attributes to the target belief based on the communications. The apparatus may compile known causes of the target belief and determine if the known cause is false. The system may further compare the attributable cause to the known causes and generate a score based on an amount of similarities between the attributable cause and the known cause.,”, “Moreover, tailored interventions provide targeted and more focused interventions as opposed to larger general advertisements. The targeted interventions give more accurate infonnation to users and generate a greater likelihood to change a user's mind. Moreover, as recommendations may be more targeted to a user's specific needs local processing power or memory needs may be reduced. These and additional benefits and features will be discussed in greater detail below”, “Now referring to FIG. 5, examples of a user interface device 140 including a
display with an intervention is illustrated. In the illustrated embodiment, the intervention is displayed as an advertisement 510 on a webpage. However, it should be understood that interventions are not limited to advertisements 510 on webpages, they may be included as
communications via the chatbot or other direct or indirect communications sent through the system 101 to the individual.
[0040] It should now be understood that embodiments described herein are directed to
systems, methods and computer programs for receiving communications from an individual and generating interventions for erroneous causes of belief, though an advertisement, for example.
“, “It should now be understood that embodiments described herein are directed to
systems, methods and computer programs for receiving communications from an individual and generating interventions for erroneous causes of belief, though an advertisement, for example. The system may receive communications from an individual through at least one of a direct method or indirect method and extract a target belief of the individual from the communications. The system may identify an attributable cause that the individual attributes to the target belief based on the communications. The system may compile known causes of the target belief and determine if the known cause is false. The system may further compare the attributable cause to the known causes and generate a score based on an amount of similarities between the attributable cause and the known cause. The system may determine a match if the score is greater than a predetermined threshold. Based on a determination of the match and the known cause as false, the system may generate interventions to the individual through a user interface. Moreover, tailored interventions provide targeted and focused interventions as opposed to larger general advertisements. These targeted interventions give accurate information to users and generate a greater likelihood to change a user's mind.“ Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: extract a target belief from the communication / identify an attributable cause for the target belief based on the communication/ compile one or more known causes of the target belief and determine that at least one of the one or more known causes is false; generate a score for a comparison between the attributable cause and each of the one or more known causes, the score is based on an amount of similarities between the attributable cause and the one or more known causes; when the score is greater than the predetermined threshold, determine that the attributable cause corresponds to the at least one of the one or more known causes that is false, when the score is greater than a predetermined threshold; and generate the interventions for presentation on the user interface based on the determination that the attributable cause corresponds to the at least one of the one or more known causes that is false; compare the score to a predetermined threshold ; when the score is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold: receive an additional communication, extract a second target belief from the additional communication , identify a second attributable cause for the second target belief based on the additional communication . These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a user interface/apparatus comprising a memory and a processor, which represent generic computing elements. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9, 17 are directed to a method and CRM for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; the claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 9, 17 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 9, 17 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 further recite and narrow the abstract idea of claims 1/9/17. The claims further recite the additional elements of using an online chatbot, using a machine learning model to extract data and training the model, an analysis module, a web browser. The web browser/module represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations; they are recited at a high level of generality. Using an online chatbot does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Using a machine learning model to extract data and training the model does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element does not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant prior art
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of
claims 1-20.
Sun (9443245) teaches an opinion search engine, including: collecting opinion data about a user-specified product category of interest from multiple different opinion-providing webpages having different link paths; extracting metadata about the opinion data from the opinion data; evaluating the different link paths of the different opinion-providing webpages to determine product category taxonomies of the different opinion-providing webpages; determining that a first link path of a first opinion-providing webpage uses a first term to refer to a specific product category and a second link path of a second opinion-providing webpage uses a second term to refer to the specific product category; creating a product category taxonomy of hierarchical product categories that includes the specific product category; categorizing the metadata according to the hierarchical categories of the product category taxonomy; and ranking different products discussed in the opinion data based at least on the categorized metadata. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/9/17.
Ruiz (20150199613) teaches knowledge discovery from belief networks, including:
providing a user interface configured to receive a selection of a given variable that is observed to take one or more given values in collected web traffic data, wherein the web traffic data is modeled using a belief network; extracting a plurality of variable-value pairs from the belief network, each extracted variable-value pair comprising an influential variable and a corresponding influential value, wherein each extracted variable-value pair has a statistical influence on a probability distribution of values taken by the given variable; and displaying a ranked list of the plurality of extracted variable-value pairs, the ranked list being ordered based on an influence parameter that quantifies the statistical influence a particular extracted variable-value pair has on the probability distribution of values taken by the given variable. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/9/17.
Cardie (20150331937) teaches automatically summarizing opinions in digital text, including: extracting multiple opinion expressions from the digital text using the processor, where each opinion expression is identified by a grammatical element and associated with an opinion source. The opinion expressions are identified that share a common opinion source and a common opinion topic using the processor. The opinion polarities and opinion strengths of the opinion expressions that share a common opinion source are combined to form (74) an overall opinion summary with one aggregate opinion frame for each common opinion source-topic pairing. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/9/17.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not
suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or
otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would
require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be
obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
The USPTO's precedential decision in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, at
8-10 (Appeals Review Panel Sept. 26, 2025) (precedential), confirms that an improvement to the
operation of a machine-learning model may constitute a technological improvement under Step
2A, Prong Two. The Office specifically designated Desjardins as precedential on "technological
improvement to a machine learning model" and subsequently updated its examination guidance to
address improvements to learning models and other applied technologies.
Conversely, merely applying otherwise generic machine-learning technology to a new field
or data environment is insufficient where the claims and disclosure do not identify an improvement
to the machine-learning technology itself Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205,
1212-16 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The Federal Circuit expressly limited Recentive to patents that do no
more than apply generic machine learning to new data environments without disclosing
improvements to the machine-learning models being applied.
If the claim is not eligible at Step 2A, Step 2B asks whether the claim contains an "inventive
concept." An inventive concept under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is an element or combination of elements,
considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18; MPEP §§ 2106, 2106.05. An inventive concept may
reside in a nonconventional arrangement of otherwise conventional components. BASCOM Global
Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Whether
claim elements or their ordered combination were well-understood, routine, and conventional may
involve underlying factual questions. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Throughout the analysis, the fact that a claim involves an abstract concept does not itself
establish ineligibility. "[A]n invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it
involves an abstract concept." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. The inquiry instead distinguishes claims to
the judicially excluded building blocks themselves from claims that apply those building blocks in
a patent-eligible manner. Id at 216-18; Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-73.
Eligibility rejections must be supported by the substantive law under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
interpreted by judicial precedent. Although USPTO guidance and examples govern examination
practice and may appropriately be cited by applicants, applicants need not mirror the factual
circumstances of a particular Office example to establish eligibility. See MPEP § 2106.07.
Step 1
Amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed, respectively, to an apparatus, a
method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium for determining an erroneous cause for
a belief and generating an intervention based on the erroneous cause. Accordingly, independent
claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to statutory categories under§ 101.
Step 2A
Prong One: The Claims Are Not Properly Characterized Merely as a Mental Process or
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The Office Action asserts that independent claim 1 recites both a method of organizing
human activity, including commercial interactions and fundamental economic practices, and a
mental process including observations, evaluations, and judgments. The Office Action similarly
rejects independent claims 9 and 17 based upon substantially the same characterization.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office's characterization of the claims when the
claims are considered as a whole and in view of the present amendments.
For purposes of explanation, but without limitation, the present application is directed to
systems and techniques for determining an erroneous cause underlying a target belief and
generating an intervention directed to that erroneous cause. More particularly, the disclosed
apparatus processes communications to extract a target belief, identifies an attributable cause of
the target belief, compares the attributable cause with known causes, generates a similarity score,
uses the score and a predetermined threshold to determine subsequent processing by the apparatus,
determines whether a corresponding known cause is false, and generates an intervention
responsive to that determination.
As discussed in the present specification, the apparatus may receive direct or indirect
communications, analyze the communications to extract a target belief, and identify an attributable
cause underlying the target belief The specification further describes use of a machine-learning
model, natural-language processing, sentiment analysis, named-entity recognition, semantic
analysis, and other language analysis in performing such processing.
The apparatus does not merely make a generalized judgment concermng whether a
person's belief is correct or incorrect. Rather, the apparatus performs a particular sequence of
communication-processing operations. The apparatus generates a score based on similarities
between an attributable cause identified from communication information and known causes,
evaluates the score relative to a predetermined threshold, and uses the result of that evaluation to
determine subsequent processing by the apparatus.
In particular, as reflected by the amendments and the processing architecture illustrated in
Fig. 3, when the score does not satisfy the predetermined threshold, the apparatus receives
additional communication information and continues processing communication information.
When the score satisfies the predetermined threshold, the apparatus proceeds along a different
processing path to determine whether the corresponding known cause is false and, when
appropriate, generate an individualized intervention based on the cause determined to be false.
Thus, the amended claims do not merely recite the generalized concepts of observing a
belief, evaluating a cause of a belief, or making a judgment concerning whether the cause is false.
Instead, the claims recite a particular computer-implemented process in which communication
information is processed and a generated similarity score controls subsequent operation of the
apparatus.
The Office Action also characterizes the claims as reciting a commercial interaction or
fundamental economic practice. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, particularly as
amended, are not fairly characterized in that manner.
The claims do not require a sale, purchase, financial transaction, contractual relationship,
market transaction, or other fundamental economic practice. Rather, the claims concern processing
communications to identify an attributable cause underlying a target belief, determining whether
a corresponding known cause is false, and generating an intervention based upon that
determination. Although the specification provides exemplary applications involving consumer
beliefs, including beliefs relating to electric vehicles, those exemplary applications do not
transform the claimed communication-processing architecture into a fundamental economic
practice.
Applicant therefore respectfully submits that the amended claims should not be reduced to
the generalized concept of a commercial interaction or a person mentally evaluating another
person's belief The specific limitations and their interaction must be considered in determining
what the claims recite.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are not fairly
characterized merely as mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Prong Two: If the Claims Recite a Judicial Exception, the Judicial Exception Is Integrated
Into a Practical Application
Even if, arguendo, the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One of Step 2A, which
Applicant does not concede, the claims nevertheless integrate any such exception into a practical
application.
Under Prong Two of Revised Step 2A, the relevant inquiry is whether the claim as a whole
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application by applying, relying on, or
using the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception.
Additional elements must be considered both individually and in combination, including the
manner in which those additional elements interact with the alleged judicial exception.
Amended independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, an apparatus configured to
receive a communication through at least one of a direct method or an
indirect method;
extract a target belief from the communication;
identify an attributable cause for the target belief based on the
communication;
compile one or more known causes of the target belief and determine that
at least one of the one or more known causes is false;
generate a score for a comparison between the attributable cause and each
of the one or more known causes, the score is based on an amount of similarities
between the attributable cause and the one or more known causes;
compare the score to a predetermined threshold;
when the score is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold:
receive an additional communication,
extract a second target belief from the additional communication,
and
identify a second attributable cause for the second target belief based
on the additional communication;
when the score is greater than the predetermined threshold, determine that
the attributable cause corresponds to the at least one of the one or more known
causes that is false; and
generate the interventions for presentation on the user interface based on the
determination that the attributable cause corresponds to the at least one of the one
or more known causes that is false.
In particular, when the score does not satisfy the predetermined threshold, the apparatus
receives additional communication information for further processing. When the score satisfies
the predetermined threshold, the apparatus proceeds to determine whether the corresponding
known cause is false and, when the corresponding known cause is determined to be false, generates
an individualized intervention based upon the false cause for presentation through the user
interface.
Applicant respectfully submits that these limitations, when considered together, integrate
any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The generated similarity score is not merely
calculated, reported, or displayed. Rather, the result of the score comparison controls subsequent
operation of the claimed apparatus and determines whether additional communication information
is obtained and processed or whether processing proceeds along the cause-verification and
intervention-generation path.
USPTO Subiect Matter Eligibility Example 40 Supports Eligibility of the Amended Claims
USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 40, entitled "Adaptive Monitoring of Network
Traffic Data," provides particularly relevant guidance.
Example 40 concerns a network appliance that collects network traffic data, compares the
collected traffic data with a predefined threshold, and collects additional NetFlow protocol data
when the collected traffic data exceeds the threshold.
The Office determined in Example 40 that comparing the collected traffic data with a
threshold could be performed mentally and therefore recited a mental process. Nevertheless, the
Office concluded that the claim was patent eligible because, when considered as a whole, the claim
integrated that mental process into a practical application. In particular, the result of the threshold
comparison controlled subsequent operation of the network appliance by determining whether the
network appliance collected additional network data.
The present amended claims employ the alleged abstract processing in an analogous
manner.
As in Example 40, the claimed threshold comparison is not an end in itself Amended claim
1 uses the result of the threshold comparison to control subsequent processing by the apparatus.
When the similarity score does not satisfy the predetermined threshold, the apparatus receives
additional communication information for further processing. When the similarity score satisfies
the predetermined threshold, the apparatus follows a different processing path in which the
corresponding known cause is evaluated and, when determined to be false, an individualized
intervention is generated based upon that false cause.
Thus, in both Example 40 and amended claim 1, information is initially acquired and
processed, a comparison against a threshold is performed, and the result of the threshold
comparison changes the subsequent operation of the claimed computer system, including whether
additional information is acquired and processed.
The correspondence may be summarized as follows. Example 40 initially collects network
traffic data. Similarly, amended claim 1 initially receives and processes communication
information.
Example 40 compares the collected network data to a predefined threshold. Similarly,
amended claim 1 generates a similarity score and compares that score to a predetermined threshold.
Example 40 uses the threshold determination to control whether additional NetFlow data
is collected. Similarly, amended claim 1 uses the threshold determination to control whether
additional communication information is received and processed or whether processing proceeds
along the cause-verification path.
Example 40 thereby provides adaptive network monitoring rather than continuously
collecting all available network data. Similarly, amended claim I thereby provides conditional
communication processing in which additional communication information is obtained and
processed when the existing information does not produce the requisite similarity determination,
while satisfaction of the threshold causes the apparatus to proceed to verification and intervention
generation.
Accordingly, just as Example 40 does not merely claim the mental process of comparing
information with a threshold, amended claim I does not merely claim mentally evaluating why a
person holds a belief Rather, the alleged abstract analysis is incorporated into a particular
computer-processing architecture in which its result controls subsequent operation of the
apparatus.
This distinction also addresses the Office Action's conclusion that the additional elements
merely constitute generic computing elements or generally link the alleged abstract idea to a
technological environment. Applicant is not relying merely upon the presence of a processor,
memory, user interface, or machine-learning model. Instead, Applicant relies upon the claimed
interaction among the communication processing, machine-learning extraction, cause
identification, similarity scoring, threshold evaluation, conditional acquisition and processing of
additional communication information, cause verification, and intervention generation.
The claimed combination therefore provides substantially more than instructions to
"apply" an alleged mental process using a computer.
Furthermore, Step 2A, Prong Two does not tum on whether the individual additional
elements are conventional. Rather, all additional elements are given weight in determining whether
the exception is integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, even assuming that
processors, memories, machine-learning models, or communication systems may individually
have been known, those components and operations must be evaluated in the particular ordered
combination recited by the amended claims.
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, as evidenced by at least the aforementioned
recitations, are directed to and integrated into the practical application of conditionally processing
electronic communications to identify an attributable cause underlying an extracted belief, using a
similarity determination to control whether additional communication information is acquired and
processed, verifying a corresponding known cause, and generating an individualized intervention
when the corresponding known cause is determined to be false.
Accordingly, even assuming that the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One,
amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 integrate any such exception into a practical application
and therefore are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A.
Step 2B
The Step 2B analysis is the search for an inventive concept, or an element or combination
of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon an ineligible concept. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,
1261 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Even if, arguendo, the amended claims were determined to be directed to an abstract idea
under Step 2A, which Applicant respectfully disputes, the claims nevertheless recite significantly
more than the alleged abstract idea.
Evaluating additional elements under Step 2B requires considering those elements both
individually and in combination. Claims must be considered as a whole, and an ordered
combination of limitations cannot properly be disregarded merely because individual limitations,
viewed in isolation, may have been known.
Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an
inventive concept when considered as a whole. The claims do not merely instruct a generic
processor to determine whether a person's reason for holding a belief is false. Instead, the claims
provide a particular processing approach in which electronic communication information is
processed to extract a target belief and identify an attributable cause, the attributable cause is
compared with known causes to generate a similarity score, and the similarity score is evaluated
against a predetermined threshold that controls subsequent operation of the system.
When the threshold is not satisfied, additional communication information is obtained and
processed. When the threshold is satisfied, the system proceeds along a different processing path
to determine whether the corresponding known cause is false and, when appropriate, generate an
individualized intervention based upon that determination.
The Office Action itself recognizes that the pnor art of record does not teach the
combination of limitations of the pending independent claims. Applicant recognizes that novelty
and non-obviousness under §§ 102 and 103 are separate inquiries from eligibility under § 101.
Nevertheless, the Office's findings further demonstrate the importance of considering the recited
limitations as the particular ordered combination actually claimed rather than characterizing the
claims merely as the use of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea.
Moreover, to the extent the Office maintains under Step 2B that the amended ordered
combination amounts only to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, such a
conclusion requires the factual support required by the Office's subject matter eligibility guidance.
The mere fact that individual components such as processors, memories, or machine-learning
models may individually have been known does not establish that the claimed ordered combination
and the claimed interaction among those elements were well-understood, routine, and
conventional.
As discussed above, the amended claims require the similarity determination to affect the
subsequent operation of the apparatus. The apparatus conditionally obtains and processes
additional communication information when the threshold is not satisfied and follows a different
processing path toward verification and individualized intervention generation when the threshold
is satisfied. These limitations form part of the claimed solution itself and are not merely presolution
data gathering or insignificant post-solution activity.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of elements of amended
independent claims 1, 9, and 17, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amounts
to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims
1, 9, and 17 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The dependent
claims are patent eligible for at least the same reasons by virtue of their dependence from the
respective independent claims.
Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested.
The pending rejection is maintained by the Examiner. The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant’s Spec. provides further context to the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “Embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to apparatuses, methods, and programs for receiving communications from an individual and generating interventions for erroneous causes of belief, though an advertisement, for example. In embodiments, the apparatuses may receive communications from an individual through at least one of a direct method or indirect method and extract a target belief of the individual from the communications. In embodiments, the apparatus may identify an attributable cause that the individual attributes to the target belief based on the communications. The apparatus may compile known causes of the target belief and determine if the known cause is false. The system may further compare the attributable cause to the known causes and generate a score based on an amount of similarities between the attributable cause and the known cause.,”, “Moreover, tailored interventions provide targeted and more focused interventions as opposed to larger general advertisements. The targeted interventions give more accurate infonnation to users and generate a greater likelihood to change a user's mind. Moreover, as recommendations may be more targeted to a user's specific needs local processing power or memory needs may be reduced. These and additional benefits and features will be discussed in greater detail below”, “Now referring to FIG. 5, examples of a user interface device 140 including a display with an intervention is illustrated. In the illustrated embodiment, the intervention is displayed as an advertisement 510 on a webpage. However, it should be understood that interventions are not limited to advertisements 510 on webpages, they may be included as communications via the chatbot or other direct or indirect communications sent through the system 101 to the individual.
[0040] It should now be understood that embodiments described herein are directed to
systems, methods and computer programs for receiving communications from an individual and generating interventions for erroneous causes of belief, though an advertisement, for example.
“, “It should now be understood that embodiments described herein are directed to
systems, methods and computer programs for receiving communications from an individual and generating interventions for erroneous causes of belief, though an advertisement, for example. The system may receive communications from an individual through at least one of a direct method or indirect method and extract a target belief of the individual from the communications. The system may identify an attributable cause that the individual attributes to the target belief based on the communications. The system may compile known causes of the target belief and determine if the known cause is false. The system may further compare the attributable cause to the known causes and generate a score based on an amount of similarities between the attributable cause and the known cause. The system may determine a match if the score is greater than a predetermined threshold. Based on a determination of the match and the known cause as false, the system may generate interventions to the individual through a user interface. Moreover, tailored interventions provide targeted and focused interventions as opposed to larger general advertisements. These targeted interventions give accurate information to users and generate a greater likelihood to change a user's mind.“
Examiner notes the 35 USC 101 analysis and the prior art analysis represent distinct, separate analyses. As per MPEP 2106: “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 (“the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (noting that the claims embody the researcher's discoveries of laws of nature). The Supreme Court’s cited rationale for considering even “just discovered” judicial exceptions as exceptions stems from the concern that “without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would ‘tie up’ the use of such tools and thereby ‘inhibit future innovation premised upon them.’” Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978-79 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 86, 101 USPQ2d at 1971). See also Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 (“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry.”). The Federal Circuit has also applied this principle, for example, when holding a concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency to be an abstract idea, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was “new”. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”) (emphasis in original).”
The pending claims and USPTO Example 40 have different fact patterns and different claimed inventions, and thus the two are not analogous. Furthermore , in Example 40 it was deemed that Claim 1 was patent eligible since it provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception. Contrary to Example 40, Claim 1, the pending instant claims do not provide a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring; the pending instant claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above.
There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec. that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
9/18/2026
Prosecution Insights