Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of May 22, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1 and 6-8 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. The claim recites setting a credit score based on a user's factual attributes and on other attributes inferred from that data. This process of gathering and evaluating information about an individual to assess financial risk is a fundamental economic practice. The claim's use of a "first variational autoencoder" and a "credit score inference model" to perform the steps of determining inferred attributes and calculating a score merely implements this abstract idea using mathematical and statistical techniques. The claims are therefore directed to the abstract idea of determining creditworthiness, which is a method of organizing human activity.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a patent eligible application. The claim elements, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application. The claim's recitation of a computer performing the method, a "first variational autoencoder," a "credit score inference model," "a plurality of VAEs," and "a plurality of inference models" amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using these tools. The claim describes using the components to perform their ordinary functions: a VAE processes input data to generate an output, and an inference model receives data to produce a score. Using a computer and these types of models to execute the steps of an abstract process does not alone provide an inventive concept.
The applicant argues the claim provides a technological improvement by using inferred attributes to create a "more accurate and comprehensive representation" for credit scoring, solving a problem of "reduced inference accuracy." This alleged improvement in accuracy, however, is a purely subjective result of the abstract idea of using more data points and different types of data in a creditworthiness evaluation. It is an improvement in the abstract idea of credit scoring, not an improvement in the functioning of the computer or another technology. The claim does not recite any improvement in how the computer processes data, manages memory, or operates; it only recites a purported improvement in the output of an economic and mathematical process. Claims that merely improve the accuracy of a fundamental economic or business practice through automation remain abstract. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010). In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claims were directed to a specific, self-referential data table that improved a computer's functionality. The claims here recite no analogous specific structure or improvement to computer operation. In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the claims addressed a specific problem arising in computer networks by manipulating hyperlink directives in an unconventional way. The claim here addresses a business problem of credit assessment and uses computer components as a tool to do so. The claim does not recite a solution to a problem specifically rooted in computer technology.
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.
3. Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of information processing without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 7 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 7 is directed to a method which is one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1: NO).
Claim 7 recites “a method performed by a …, the method comprising:
accepting, as an input, a factual attribute that can be confirmed to be a fact with respect to a user based on user-provided data having been provided by the user oneself or history data of the user;
determining, using a … operating on at least the factual attribute, an inferred attribute with respect to the user; and
inferring, by a credit score inference model, a credit score to be set to the user based on the factual attribute and the inferred attribute,
wherein the inferring comprises:
inferring the credit score to be set to the user based on an output value obtained by inputting the factual attribute and the inferred attribute, to the credit score inference model,
wherein the credit score inference model has been generated and/or updated using teacher data based on : i) the factual attribute and the inferred attribute being an input value, and ii) the credit score determined based on a payment history of deferred payment related to users who share the factual attribute and the inferred attribute being an output value,
determining the inferred attribute based on an output value obtained by inputting the user-related data including the factual attribute to the …,
determining that, when an output value obtained from the … within a prescribed range, the user has the inferred attribute, wherein the … uses the user-related data as input value and produces a value indicating a probability of the user having a prescribed inferred attribute as the output value,
wherein the method further comprises implementing a plurality of …, the plurality of … including the … wherein, when the user-related data including the factual attribute are input to the plurality of …, a plurality of vector representations with respect to the user are obtained as an output value,
wherein the method further comprises implementing a plurality of inference models wherein, when the plurality of vector representations of the user obtained from the plurality of … are concatenated and input to the plurality of inference models, a value indicating a probability of the user having the prescribed inferred attribute is obtained as an output value,
wherein the plurality of … are … with unsupervised learning,
wherein the plurality of inference models are …with the teacher data, and
wherein the teacher data comprises inferred attribute”. These limitations describe an abstract idea of information processing and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (managing person behavior or relationships and following rules or instructions or commercial or legal interactions). Accordingly, claim 7 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
4. The claim also recites as additional elements such as “computer”, “a first variational autoencoder (VAE)”, “implementing a plurality of VAEs”, and “trained” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 7 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
5. Further, as the additional elements of claim 7 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
6. Claims 1 and 8 also recite the abstract idea of information processing and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial interactions or sales activities or behaviors, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) step one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04). Claim 1 includes the additional elements of “an information processing apparatus, comprising: at least one memory configured to store program code; at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including: input code which, when executed causes the at least one of the at least processor ..“, “determining code which, when executed, causes the at least one of the at least one processor …”, “a first variational autoencoder (VAE) …”, “inference code, which when executed, causes the at least one of the at least one processor to …”, “… inference code is further configured to cause the at least one the at least one processor to implement a plurality of VAEs”, “wherein the inference code is further configured to cause the least one of the at least one processor ...”, “… the plurality of VAEs are trained …”. Claim 8 includes the additional elements of “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon program code to be executed by at least one processor, the program code including: input code which, when executed causes the at least one of the at least processor ..“, “determining code which, when executed, causes the at least one of the at least one processor …”, “a first variational autoencoder (VAE) …”, “inference code, which when executed, causes the at least one of the at least one processor to …”, “… inference code is further configured to cause the at least one the at least one processor to implement a plurality of VAEs”, “wherein the inference code is further configured to cause the least one of the at least one processor ...”, “… the plurality of VAEs are trained …. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or lo any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a}.
7. Claim 6 recites “wherein the … which, when … causes the at least one of the at least …, to further perform … infers the credit score using the credit score inference model generated and/or updated using a machine learning framework based on a gradient boosting decision tree” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “wherein the inference code which, when executed, causes the at least one of the at least one processor” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
8. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
9. Claims 1, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1 and 8 each recite "code," "determining code," and "inference code". Applicant’s specification does not disclose the specific algorithm, architecture, or training methodology for the "first variational autoencoder (VAE)" or the "credit score inference model" that perform the core functions of determining an inferred attribute and inferring a credit score. In other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed. The claim recites these components in functional terms, but the specification lacks a description of how they are constructed and operate to achieve these results.
11. Claim 6 is rejected as it depends on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm 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, Calvin Hewitt can be reached on 571-272-6709. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
January 23, 2026