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
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on December 12, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted December 12, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 12, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system for resource allocation. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a system for resource allocation. The system allocates resource to the selected user segments based on the user segments’ predicted conversion scores. The claim recites the steps: identifying a plurality of user segments…; selecting an initialization set of user segments…; determining an initialization set of conversion scores…; generating a first set of predicted conversion scores…, selecting a first set of user segments…, and generating a first resource allocation for the first set of user segments at a first point in time…, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations.
Moreover, the claim recites identifying a plurality of user segments…; selecting an initialization set of user segments…; determining an initialization set of conversion scores…; generating a first set of predicted conversion scores…, selecting a first set of user segments…, and generating a first resource allocation for the first set of user segments at a first point in time…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The claim also recites “processing the first set of predicted conversion scores using an acquisition model” which is mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “a memory”, “one or more processors”, “initializing the trained surrogate model using the initialization set of conversion scores; and generating, using a trained surrogate model, a first set of predicted conversion scores.”
The steps of “identifying a plurality of user segments…; selecting an initialization set of user segments…; determining an initialization set of conversion scores…; generating a first set of predicted conversion scores…, selecting a first set of user segments…, and generating a first resource allocation for the first set of user segments at a first point in time…”, are recited as being performed by the processors. The processors are recited at a high level of generality and are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processors, the memory, and computer-executable instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "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).
The additional elements “initializing the trained surrogate model using the initialization set of conversion scores; and generating, using a trained surrogate model, a first set of predicted conversion scores” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
The additional elements “initializing the trained surrogate model using the initialization set of conversion scores; and generating, using a trained surrogate model, a first set of predicted conversion scores” are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning functions. Rather, this limitation only recites the outcome of “generating a first set of predicted conversion scores for the plurality of user segments” and does not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements “initializing the trained surrogate model using the initialization set of conversion scores; and generating, using a trained surrogate model, a first set of predicted conversion scores” also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “initializing the trained surrogate model using the initialization set of conversion scores; and generating, using a trained surrogate model, a first set of predicted conversion scores” limit the identified judicial exceptions “generating a first set of predicted conversion scores for the plurality of user segments”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the processor, the memory, improvements to the machine learning, or other technology. They just merely used as general means for performing the abstract idea. They do not recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of “initializing the trained surrogate model using the initialization set of conversion scores; and generating, using a trained surrogate model, a first set of predicted conversion scores” are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processors to perform limitations “identifying a plurality of user segments…; selecting an initialization set of user segments…; determining an initialization set of conversion scores…; generating a first set of predicted conversion scores…, selecting a first set of user segments…, and generating a first resource allocation for the first set of user segments at a first point in time…”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 17, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 1 directed to a method, independent claim 17 directed to a medium, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 12.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 13, and 18, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting determining a first set of conversion scores for the first set of user segments based on the first resource allocation, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 12. Moreover, the claims recite the additional element refining the trained surrogate model based on the first set of conversion scores, which is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning functions. Rather, this limitation only recites the outcome of “generating a resource allocation” and does not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (see claim 12 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 14, and 19, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting selecting a second set of user segments, from the plurality of user segments, by processing the second set of predicted conversion scores using the acquisition model; and generating a second resource allocation for the second set of user segments at a second point in time, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity, Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 12. Moreover, the claims recite the additional element generating, using the trained surrogate model, a second set of predicted conversion scores for the plurality of user segments, which is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning functions. Rather, this limitation only recites the outcome of “a second set of predicted conversion scores” and does not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (see claim 12 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4, 15, and 20, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting determining a second set of conversion scores for the second set of user segments based on the second resource allocation, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 12. Moreover, the claims recite the additional element refining the trained surrogate model based on the first set of conversion scores and the second set of conversion scores, which is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning functions. Rather, this limitation only recites the outcome of “generating a resource allocation” and does not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (see claim 12 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the first set of predicted conversion scores indicate predicted conversions when allocating resources to each of the plurality of user segments, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 12. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the claim recites the additional element wherein the trained surrogate model comprises a random forest model, which are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning functions. Rather, this limitation only recites the outcome of “generating a resource allocation” and does not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (see claim 12 above). Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 16, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting selecting the first set of user segments, using the acquisition model, based on the predicted conversion scores and the variances, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity, Mental process, and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 12. Moreover, the claims recite the additional elements determining a respective predicted conversion score using the trained surrogate model; and determining a respective variance of the respective predicted conversion score using the trained surrogate model, which are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning functions. Rather, this limitation only recites the outcome of “determining a respective predicted conversion score and determining a respective variance of the respective predicted conversion score” and do not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (see claim 12 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 9-10, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the plurality of user segments are orthogonal; and wherein the plurality of features comprise at least one of: user age, user gender, user bed-sharing status, user location type, user region, user education level, or user device type, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 12. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 11, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting the first resource allocation for the first set of user segments at the first point in time comprises providing targeted content to the first set of user segments during a window of time; and the at least one user segment not included in the first set of user segments does not receive targeted content during the window of time, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 12. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 7-20 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
6. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “initializing a trained surrogate model, comprising: selecting an initialization set of user segments, from the plurality of user segments, based on the plurality of features, determining, for the initialization set of user segments, an initialization set of conversion scores representing estimated outcomes associated with resource allocations, and initializing the trained surrogate model using the initialization set of conversion scores;
generating, using the trained surrogate model, a first set of predicted conversion scores for the plurality of user segments” recited in the independent claims 1, 12, and 17.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
I. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the amended claims as a whole include an improvement to the computer, specifically to the technical field of computer-implemented resource allocation modeling and machine learning-based prediction, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the amended claims recite the additional elements “initializing the trained surrogate model using the initialization set of conversion scores; and generating, using a trained surrogate model, a first set of predicted conversion scores” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer.
The additional elements “initializing the trained surrogate model using the initialization set of conversion scores; and generating, using a trained surrogate model, a first set of predicted conversion scores” are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning functions. Rather, this limitation only recites the outcome of “generating a first set of predicted conversion scores for the plurality of user segments” and does not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements “initializing the trained surrogate model using the initialization set of conversion scores; and generating, using a trained surrogate model, a first set of predicted conversion scores” also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “initializing the trained surrogate model using the initialization set of conversion scores; and generating, using a trained surrogate model, a first set of predicted conversion scores” limit the identified judicial exceptions “generating a first set of predicted conversion scores for the plurality of user segments”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the processor, the memory, improvements to the machine learning, or other technology. They just merely used as general means for performing the abstract idea. They do not recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Accordingly, the 102 rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
8. 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 date of this final action.
9. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected.
10. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Horan et al. (US 2023/0099266) disclose a system that provides an automated risk relationship resource allocation tool via a back-end application computer server of an enterprise.
Yates et al. (US 2022/0129828) disclose methods and systems for network resource allocations.
Servidone et al. (US 2020/0202267) disclose a system to provide an automated risk relationship resource allocation tool via back-end application computer server of an enterprise. A resource allocation data store may contain electronic records representing requested resource allocations between the enterprise and a plurality of entities.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. 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.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 March 17, 2026