DETAILED ACTION
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 November 6, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-17 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/6/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Claims 1 and 11 are directed to the abstract idea of providing information in response to a user request. The process involves generating an explanatory text and displaying that text in a transient manner. This constitutes a method of organizing human activity. Applicant's reliance on Example 23 from the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is noted. The examples in the Guidance are for illustrative purposes and do not establish rules for specific claims. The factual scenario in Example 23 addressed a specific problem of graphical data presentation in a display system, namely the management of overlapping windows that obscure information. The claims here do not solve a similar problem of graphical information presentation. Instead, the claims are focused on the generation and temporary display of explanatory content itself. The steps of displaying a window adjacent to a cursor and removing it are part of presenting the information, not a specific improvement to the graphical user interfaces display functionality. The claim elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. The use of a machine learning model, such as an LLM, to generate the qualitative explanation text employs that technology for its intended purpose of information generation. The claim does not recite any improvement to the operation or functionality of the machine learning model. The graphical user interface elements, including detecting a mouseover event, displaying an explanation window positioned adjacent to a driver, and removing the window, describe the standard function of displaying transient information in response to a user action. The claim does not specify a particular manner of implementing these graphical actions that changes how the computer handles or renders the display. When considered in combination, the claim describes applying the abstract idea of generating and displaying explanations using a machine learning model within a graphical user interface environment. The combination of these elements does not produce a functionality that is not native to the individual technologies employed. The claim as a whole is directed to the application of an abstract process using computing tools. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9, and 11-17 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The rejection of these claims and claims dependent thereon under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is 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.
4. Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of financial analysis without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 1 is directed to a method which is one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 recites “a method, comprising:
determining a set of drivers associated with a primary model;
determining a set of goals for the primary model;
determining a … based on a set of constraints for the set of drivers, the set of goals, and a primary model context;
generating a set of plans using a … based on the set of drivers and the set of goals; and the …, wherein the … receives the set of drivers and the … as input, and predicts the set of plans;
determining a set of … by running each plan of the set of plans on the primary model;
displaying a … model output on a …, wherein the … comprises a set of icons for a set of drivers and a set of values for each driver;
selecting a plan from the set of plans based on a proximity between the respective … and the set of goals; detecting a mouseover event corresponding to a cursor hovering over a driver of the set of drivers;
in response to detecting the … event, dynamically determining a qualitative explanation text for the driver and … displaying an … comprising the qualitative explanation text to a user on the …, wherein the … is positioned adjacent to the driver, wherein the qualitative explanation text is generated … based on …, wherein the … comprises a driver name and driver relationships with other drivers within the primary model, wherein …the … as input, and predicts the qualitative explanation text, and … removing the … from the … when the … is no longer hovering over the driver”. These limitations describe an abstract idea of financial analysis and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial or legal interactions).
5. The claim also recites as additional elements of “computer-implemented, simulated, graphical user interface, icons, mouseover, curser, automatically displaying an explanation window, automatically removing the explanation window from the graphical user interface …” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
6. Further, as the additional elements of claim 1 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 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
7. Claim 11 also recites the abstract idea of financial analysis which is grouped under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial or legal interactions) in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04). Claim 11 includes the additional elements of “system comprising: a processor configured, simulated, graphical user interface, using an LLM, icons, mouseover, cursor, automatically displaying an explanation window, automatically removing the explanation window from the graphical user interface … ”. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements 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.
8. Claim 2 recites “providing the set of … model outputs to the … as feedback; and determining a set of updated plans using the … based on the feedback” which further define the abstract idea. The claim includes “simulated” and “machine learning model” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
9. Claim 3 recites “wherein each plan of the set of plans comprises a set of proposed values for the set of drivers” which further define the abstract idea.
10. Claim 4 recites “wherein the proximity for a plan is based on a distance metric between the set of goals and the respective … model output” which further define the abstract idea. The claim includes “simulated” and “machine learning model” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
11. Claim 5 recites “determining a set of tasks for the selected plan using the …; and performing the set of tasks using the …” which further define the abstract idea. The claim includes “machine learning model” as an additional element. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
12. Claim 6 recites “wherein the primary model context comprises a representation of a structure of the primary model” which further define the abstract idea.
13. Claim 7 recites “wherein each driver of the set of drivers comprises a set of driver values, wherein the set of explanations comprises an explanation for each driver of the set of driver values” which further define the abstract idea.
14. Claim 9 recites “wherein a … of the set of … is determined by populating a … template with the primary model context, wherein the … template is determined based on an explanation type” which further define the abstract idea. The claim includes “prompt” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
15. Claim 10 recites “wherein the qualitative explanation for the driver is generated based on a driver name and driver relationships with other variables within the primary model, using [a model]” which further define the abstract idea. The claim includes “LLM” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment it does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
16. Claim 12 recites “wherein the … is further … to: receive user input on the set of … model outputs; provide the user input to the … as feedback; and determine a set of updated plans using the … based on the feedback, the representation of the primary model, and the set of goals” which further define the abstract idea. The claim includes “simulated” and “machine learning model” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
17. Claim 13 recites “wherein the representation for the primary model comprises a description for each independent variable of the set of variables” which further define the abstract idea.
18. Claim 14 recites “wherein each plan comprises values for a subset of the set of variables that are associated with the goal” which further define the abstract idea.
19. Claim 15 recites “wherein the set of …model outputs are provided as feedback back to the …, wherein the … determines an updated set of plans for the set of goals based on the feedback” which further define the abstract idea. The claim includes “simulated” and “machine learning model” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
20. Claim 16 recites “wherein the ,,, is further … to: determine a description of the selected plan using the …” which further define the abstract idea. The claim includes “processing system is further configured” and “machine learning model” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment they do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
21. Claim 17 recites “wherein the machine learning model further comprises a generative model” which do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment it does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve another technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
22. 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.
23. Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-17 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.
24. Claims 1 and 11 each recite “generating a set of plans using a machine learning model" where the model "receives the set of drivers [or variables] and the prompt as input, and predicts the set of plans”. This recites a functional outcome without disclosing how a machine learning model is trained, configured, or structured to achieve this specific, non-conventional result. 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 (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I).
25. Claims 1 and 11 each recite “in response to detecting the mouseover event, dynamically determine …”. Applicant’s specification states the explanation is pre-generated. Paragraph 0124 of Applicant’s specification recites “For example, when a user uses an interface 130 (e.g., graphical user interface) and moves the cursor around to interface with a primary model, an explanation (e.g., pre-generated explanation) is displayed for a driver and/or driver value associated with the primary model that the cursor is hovering (e.g., in a mouseover)”. The limitation of
amendment adds “in response to detecting the mouseover event, dynamically determine” which is not disclosed in the original specification.
26. Claims 2-7, 9, and 12-17 are rejected as each depends on claims 1 and 11.
27. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
28. Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
29. Claims 2-7, 9, and 12-17 are rejected as each depends on claims 1 and 11.
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 9:30 am 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. 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 30, 2026