Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on March 2, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 8 – 11, 14 – 16 and 19 – 20 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 1 – 20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 10 and 15 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding to rejection under 35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s argument (pages 9 – 12) is persuasive. The claims amendment overcomes the prior art of the record. After a further search, no reference is found to teach, or in a combination to teach, the claimed limitations for the independent claims.
The closest reference Purang et al. (JP 2017-069748) discloses a method for integrating aspects of theoretical reasoning practical reasoning and reasoning about and executing plans (abstract).
However, Purang, alone or in combination, does not teach all the limitations recited in the independent claims of the instant application.
Therefore, the §103 rejected is lifted.
Regarding to rejection under 35 USC § 101
The Applicant alleges: “
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Applicant traverses this ground of rejection because the claims are directed to subject matter that is integrated into a practical application and provides improvements over the conventional technologies. See Spec. [0002]- [0003].
More particularly, the claims recite a concrete, data structure-anchored narrative generation system that is not abstract. For example, the claimed system selects specific calculation functions from an available library based on a predictive classifier output (including reason codes), retrieves a relevant time-series dataset, and uses a calculation engine to derive temporal and quantitative information that is then used to generate a detailed narrative. This is an improvement over the conventional technologies that typically only generate a set of reason codes with no meaningful narrative. See Spec. [0004], [00012], [00027]-[00031].”
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding limitation of “determining, by the one or more processors, a function of the calculation engine to execute based on one or more reason codes associated with the output of the predictive classifier”, it can be interpreted as the human can determine a next step/function (e.g. pause, recalculate) based on a reason code. It is a method of organizing human activity or mental processes.
The Applicant further alleges: “
The disclosure further discloses a technical input standardization architecture that converts heterogeneous structured sources into an NLP-processable form (e.g., transactional data and classifier outputs in CSV/JSON). In some example embodiments, the sources are converted into natural-language text strings and then into a standardized token format (e.g., integer/word-part token sequences) suitable for an NLP module, which processes tokens from multiple sources (e.g., transactional data, ML outputs, demographic data, and external sources) to produce a coherent narrative intended to be understandable and operationally useful. See Spec. [00011], [00025]- [00026]). These features also are related to the claimed advance over the conventional technologies utilized to implement explainable learning models.
Another technical advancement over conventional systems is the ability for statistical contextualization and quantification of abnormality using the recited calculation engine that computes population-wide and cluster/peer-group statistics for comparison and generates a degree of abnormality that is expressly included in the narrative, with the statistics including quantiles (e.g., min/max) to quantify how extreme an event is. See Spec. [0008]-[0009], [00033]- [00035], for example. Further, accuracy and operational reliability improvements are achieved through human-in-the-loop refinement and verification. That is, narratives can be refined based on user feedback via a user interface (e.g., edits/tags) to meaningfully correct narrative inaccuracies by using calculation-engine outputs to cross-reference corresponding dataset truth. See Spec [00010], [00036], [00041].
As such, the claims are integrated into a practical application because under MPEP §2106.04(d) the detailed claim elements meaningfully limit any alleged abstract concept by reciting particular data retrieval and computation steps that transform time-series input data and classifier outputs into computed textual features used in the narrative. Consistent with MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP §2106.05(a), these are the types of technology/technical-field advancements that demonstrate improvements over the technical operation of narrative generation for explainable predictive classifiers, thereby integrating the concept into a practical application rather than merely invoking it to generate reason codes.”
Examiner’s response:
However, the claimed limitations can be interpreted, as the Examiner explained in the § 101 rejection, a person to perform a predictive analysis, and simply put this idea into a computer to perform execution. The claimed limitations does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a).
The Applicant still further alleges: “
Further, it is respectfully submitted that the Office Action has failed to provide any reasonable support for the assertion that the practical application of the claimed technology is similar to a simplistic mathematical problem that one can solve in his or her mind. The Office Action has also failed to provide any rational underpinnings as to how the claimed technology can be simply performed by pen and paper. As provided in detail herein, the Examiner has simply relied on conclusory statements without any logical support or meaningful analysis. In the analysis included in the Office Action, the Examiner has basically stated that the claims are abstract relying on nothing other than personal subjective opinion. Reliance on conclusory statements does not establish a prima facie case and does not shift the burden. Accordingly, the Office is requested to withdraw the § 101 grounds of rejection.”
Examiner’s response:
In the § 101 rejection, the Examiner provided detailed explanation for each claimed limitation for a broadest reasonable interpretation. The claimed limitation does not claim any practical application of the technology.
The claimed limitation of “generating, by the one or more processors, a narrative for the output of the predictive classifier based on the temporal information and the quantitative information”, can be interpreted as the human can, using a pen and paper, to write/generate a narrative for whether his/her analysis result is normal or abnormal.
The Examiner’s analysis is based on guidance on MPEP 2106.04 – 05. Therefore, the § 101 rejection is still 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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 15:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 10 and 15 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 10 and 15 are directed an idea for generating a narrative for output of the predictive classifier which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 15:
The claims in the instant application include:
selecting, from a list of available functions by one or more processors, a function based on an output of a predicative classifier;
retrieving, by the one or more processors, a dataset relevant to the selected function, wherein the dataset is a time series dataset;
analyzing, in accordance with the selected function by a calculation engine, the dataset to derive temporal information and quantitative information associated with the dataset;
generating, by the one or more processors, a narrative for the output of the predictive classifier based on the temporal information and the quantitative information; and
determining, by the one or more processors, a function of the calculation engine to execute based on one or more reason codes associated with the output of the predictive classifier.
Regarding “selecting, from a list of available functions by one or more processors, a function based on an output of a predicative classifier”, it can be interpreted as a human can select, from a list of available functions, a function to perform a prediction (for example, analyzing bank transaction). The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mental processes.
Regarding “retrieving, by the one or more processors, a dataset relevant to the selected function, wherein the dataset is a time series dataset,” it can be interpreted as the human can retrieve current month bank statement for analysis. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mental processes.
Regarding “analyzing, in accordance with the selected function by a calculation engine, the dataset to derive temporal information and quantitative information associated with the dataset”, it can be interpreted as the human can further analyze the dataset to derive information associated with time and quantity. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mental processes.
Regarding “generating, by the one or more processors, a narrative for the output of the predictive classifier based on the temporal information and the quantitative information”, it can be interpreted as the human can, using a pen and paper, to generate a narrative for whether the transaction is normal or abnormal. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mental processes.
Regarding “determining, by the one or more processors, a function of the calculation engine to execute based on one or more reason codes associated with the output of the predictive classifier”, it can be interpreted as the human can determine a next step (e.g. pause, recalculate) based on a reason code. It is a method of organizing human activity or mental processes.
As analyzed above, the above claimed limitations are mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Prong 2:
The claims include additional elements of
system, processor, calculation engine, and non-transient machine-readable medium.
Regarding “system, processor, calculation engine, and non-transient machine-readable medium”, they are considered as to use a general computational hardware/software. It is considered as “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
They are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the recited generic additional element (e.g., system, processor, calculation engine, and non-transient machine-readable medium) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a computational algorithm, a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include computer processors, computer-readable storage media.
The additional element (e.g., system, processor, calculation engine, and non-transient machine-readable medium) simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III.
Thus, the recited generic additional elements (e.g., system, processor, calculation engine, and non-transient machine-readable medium) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2 – 9, 11 – 14 and 16 – 20, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claims 1, 10 and 15 because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claims 1, 10 and 15, wherein limitations regarding additional aspect for process; "comprising ... ", “is …”, “refining …”, “converted …”, “determining …”, “executing …” and “integrating …”, is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes” as the abstract idea (similar to claim as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s argument (pages 9 – 12) is persuasive. The claims amendment overcomes the prior art of the record. After a further search, no reference is found to teach, or in a combination to teach, the claimed limitations for the independent claims.
The closest reference Purang et al. (“"Practical Reasoning and Plan Execution with Active Logic") discloses a method for integrating aspects of theoretical reasoning practical reasoning and reasoning about and executing plans (abstract).
However, Purang, alone or in combination, does not teach all the limitations recited in the independent claims of the instant application.
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 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 QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677