DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 8/10/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 have been amended and claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Amendments
The previously pending 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments. Please see below for reasoning.
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-2 and 4-20, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims recite a neural network. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner asserts that generic use of a neural network merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05 and Applicant’s specification Paragraph 0047). The Examiner also notes the training details recited in claim 2 merely define the data and not the technical details of the neural network beyond generic use. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner also disagrees that there is an improvement with analyzing two domains rather than one. Applicant’s claimed domains are merely categorized pieces of data or data categorizations (See Applicant’s specification Paragraph 0043). Where merely using two categorizations of data in the analysis further narrows the abstract idea. Applicant has not properly identified the additional elements. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner further notes that adding weights narrows the abstract idea, where “with an attention mechanism of the neural network” is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner feels the Ex parte Desjardins is a great example of how much detail and specific technical details the office expects to be recited in the claims regarding improvements to machine learning. The specific algorithm of the neural network is not claimed by Applicant, but rather generic use which is also supported by Applicant’s specification Paragraph 0047. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1-2 and 4-15 are directed toward a system, claims 16-19 are directed towards a product, and claims 20 are directed toward a process; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a system for applying data from a first domain to an interaction sequence disruption prediction model configured to generate predictions associated with a second domain, wherein the interaction sequence disruption prediction model comprises a neural network having an attention mechanism, the system comprising one or more processors, and memory having instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive one or more subject event indicators associated with a subject entity and a first domain, wherein the one or more subject event indicators comprise respective timestamps, and each of the one or more subject event indicators excludes a quantifiable feature, and wherein the second domain comprises data that comprises the quantifiable feature that is excluded from the one or more subject event indicators associated with the first domain; generate, based at least in part on the one or more subject event indicators and the respective timestamps, a subject time series data object associated with the subject entity, the subject time series data object comprising the one or more subject event indicators associated with the first domain; apply the interaction sequence disruption prediction model to the subject time series data object, wherein applying the interaction sequence disruption prediction model comprises assigning, with an attention mechanism of the neural network, attention weights to the one or more subject event indicators according to an event type of the one or more subject event indicators and the respective timestamps; generate, based at least in part on applying the interaction sequence disruption prediction model to the subject time series data object, an interaction sequence disruption prediction associated with the second domain and comprising a subject directional indicator indicating an increase or a decrease of the quantifiable feature relative to a prior trend or pattern; generate, based at least in part on the interaction sequence disruption prediction, an electronic communication configured for display via a display device; and transmit the electronic communication to a computing device associated with the subject entity (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing received event indicators to generate disruption predictions for commercial activities using a neural network with quantifiable features and weights which a human inputs into the computer so results can be displayed and the human takes action, which is managing how humans interact for commercial purposes.
Dependent claims 2, 4-15, and 17-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the Independent claims additionally recite “a system; a neural network; the system comprising one or more processors, and memory having instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: via a display device; and transmit the electronic communication to a computing device associated with the subject entity (claim 1)”; “a non-transitory computer readable medium; a neural network; the non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to; via a display device; and transmit the electronic communication to a computing device associated with the subject entity (claim 16)”; “A computer-implemented method; a neural network; via a display device; and transmitting the electronic communication to a computing device associated with the subject entity (claim 20)”, which are additional elements that would not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 2, 4-15, and 17-19 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2 and 17 additionally recite “train the interaction sequence disruption prediction model (claims 2 and 17)” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure is recited at such a high level of generality it merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05). Further, Method; System Independent claims 1, 16 and 20 recite “a system; a neural network; the system comprising one or more processors, and memory having instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: via a display device; and transmit the electronic communication to a computing device associated with the subject entity (claim 1)”; “a non-transitory computer readable medium; a neural network; the non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to; via a display device; and transmit the electronic communication to a computing device associated with the subject entity (claim 16)”; “A computer-implemented method; a neural network; via a display device; and transmitting the electronic communication to a computing device associated with the subject entity (claim 20)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0077-0079 and Figures 1 and 4. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2, 4-15, and 17-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2 and 17 additionally recite “train the interaction sequence disruption prediction model (claims 2 and 17)” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1, 16, and 20 disclose a system, product, and method for generating interaction sequence disruption predictions by receiving event indicators with excludable quantifiable features for different time series of data and using a neural network with applied weights to determine an increase or decrease of the quantifiable feature relative to a trend and display the results.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Azeez et al. (US 2025/0208932 A1) – which discloses predicting events and detecting missed events (See OA for specific citations).
Meredith et al. (US 2018/0357652 A1) – which discloses analyzing encrypted purchasing data (See OA for specific citations).
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1, 16, and 20, such as generating interaction sequence disruption predictions by receiving event indicators with excludable quantifiable features for different time series of data and using a neural network with applied weights to determine an increase or decrease of the quantifiable feature relative to a trend and display the results. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “a system for applying data from a first domain to an interaction sequence disruption prediction model configured to generate predictions associated with a second domain, wherein the interaction sequence disruption prediction model comprises a neural network having an attention mechanism, the system comprising one or more processors, and memory having instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive one or more subject event indicators associated with a subject entity and a first domain, wherein the one or more subject event indicators comprise respective timestamps, and each of the one or more subject event indicators excludes a quantifiable feature, and wherein the second domain comprises data that comprises the quantifiable feature that is excluded from the one or more subject event indicators associated with the first domain; generate, based at least in part on the one or more subject event indicators and the respective timestamps, a subject time series data object associated with the subject entity, the subject time series data object comprising the one or more subject event indicators associated with the first domain; apply the interaction sequence disruption prediction model to the subject time series data object, wherein applying the interaction sequence disruption prediction model comprises assigning, with an attention mechanism of the neural network, attention weights to the one or more subject event indicators according to an event type of the one or more subject event indicators and the respective timestamps; generate, based at least in part on applying the interaction sequence disruption prediction model to the subject time series data object, an interaction sequence disruption prediction associated with the second domain and comprising a subject directional indicator indicating an increase or a decrease of the quantifiable feature relative to a prior trend or pattern; generate, based at least in part on the interaction sequence disruption prediction, an electronic communication configured for display via a display device; and transmit the electronic communication to a computing device associated with the subject entity (as required by independent claims 1, 16, and 20)”, thus rendering claims 1, 16, 20 and their dependent claims as allowable over the prior art.
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.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights