DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/11/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,521,214; and 12,051,077 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of acts. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the steps of determining past payment history information of the debtor; determining account history of a non-debt account of the debtor; determining the predicted payment date of a payment of the obligation by using the past payment history information and the account history of the non-debt account of the debtor as inputs to a prediction model, the prediction model comprising one or more data structures created using a machine-learning algorithm and a training data set comprising a plurality of features including past payment history of a plurality of debtors on debt accounts and information about non-debt accounts of the plurality of debtors; and automatically causing a modification to a debtor payment schedule related to the debt, the modification based upon the predicted payment date, the modification changing a timing of future payments due to align with the predicted payment date. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”), or in the alternative, the organizing human activity in the form of fundamental economic practices. These limitations fall under the “mental processes” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” groups (Step 2A1-Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using hardware processors and/or memory. The processor/memory in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processor performing generic computer functions. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Training and applying machine learning algorithm is generic data processing. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 15 recite corresponding apparatus and non-transitory machine-readable medium equivalents of claim 1. This claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 2-5, 7-12 and 16-19 further recite wherein the account history of the non-debt account includes information about a frequency and amount of deposits into the non-debt account; wherein the past payment history information includes one or more of: a standard deviation of a date of payment over a past time period, average date of payment over the past time period, or specific payment dates for each payment over the past time period; using the predicted payment date to modify a content of a debtor contact by modifying a call script or email text; wherein the prediction model further uses debtor information related to life events experienced by the debtor.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 20 recite encoding non-numerical features of the training data using one-hot-encoding to create modified training data; and training the prediction model using the modified training data to create the prediction model, wherein the prediction model is a neural network; determining a model update metric comprising an error rate of the prediction model; evaluate the model update metric against an update criterion; determining that the update metric meets the update criterion and in response: updating the training data to include new data including actual payment dates; and retraining the prediction model with the training data and new data.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the use of machine learning to automatically modify payment obligations of debtors based upon when the debtor is likely to pay is a technological solution (citing Ex parte Kannan and Ex parte Desjardins).
With respect to Ex parte Kannan, Examiner respectfully respond that this PTAB decision is not considered a precedential decision, and the facts of the case are different from the instant invention. Note that there are other PTAB decisions involving machine learning that were deemed ineligible. For example, Ex parte Matt Cannon, Wei Liu and Jon Wierks (Appeal 2021-000137, Application No. 15/346,498) (non-precedential).
For purposes of this response, only the Ex parte Desjardins will be considered since it has been designated precedential. In the instant invention, the payment history of a debtor in combination with the account history of a non-debt account of the debtor serves as inputs (as well as training data sets) to a machine learning (prediction) model to determine a predicted payment date (Spec. ¶¶0023-0031). This model is simply used in a generic manner that does not confer any improvements to technology or technical field (that is, the instant invention unlike Ex parte Desjardins does not recite improvement in training the machine learning itself, see Ex parte Desjardins pg. 8). Therefore, Ex parte Desjardins does not apply here. The claims are patent ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Shah et al., US Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0265443;
2. Shao et al., US Patent No. 7,536,348;
3. Heiser, II et al., US Patent Application Pub. No. 2011/0276383;
4. Crane et al., US Patent No. 7,313,543;
5. Day et al., US Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0232814;
6. Ellis et al., US Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0100464; and
7. Lyda et al., US Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0133405.
The above references are as described in the parent application 16/948993, now U.S. Patent No. 11,521,214.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLABODE AKINTOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30a-6:00p.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/OLABODE AKINTOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691