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 .
Status of Claims
The following is Office Action on the merits in response to the communication received on 9/3/26.
Claim status:
Amended claims: none
Canceled claims: none
Added New claims: None
Pending claims: 1-20
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 not directed to statutory subject matter. Specifically, the invention of claims 1-20 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to a method (claim 1), a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 8) and a system (claim 15). Therefore on its face, each of claims 1, 8 and 15 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. However each of claims 1, 8 and 15 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, under Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two) and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, which is a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. 101, as detailed below. Using the language of independent claim 1 to illustrate the claim recites the limitations of, (i) receiving, a request to perform at least one financial simulation of a financial profile pertaining to a consumer, the request comprising metadata specifying a hypothetical action to be simulated on the consumer's financial profile; (ii) receiving a credit data of the consumer, wherein the credit data includes at least one of a credit score, tradeline, credit inquiry, or a public record of the consumer; (iii) generating a prediction related to the at least one financial simulation based on an output of the ML model under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices - mitigating risk, and/or commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computers but for the recitation of generic computers and generic computer components. (Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and the analysis is the same).
That is, other than reciting a computer, aggregating the credit data of the consumer to determine one or more features required by a Machine Learning (ML) model; creating a feature array structured for ML input from the aggregated credit data, and submitting the feature array to the ML model, the ML model having been trained using credit profiles of a plurality of consumers nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices - mitigating risk, and/or commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computers. If a claim limitation under its BRI, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the limitations fall within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance 84 Fed.Reg 50 (“2019 PEG”).
This “methods of organizing human activity” is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong Two of the 2019 PEG. In particular claim 1 recites the following additional element of, a computer, aggregating the credit data of the consumer to determine one or more features required by a Machine Learning (ML) model; creating a feature array structured for ML input from the aggregated credit data, and submitting the feature array to the ML model, the ML model having been trained using credit profiles of a plurality of consumers. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element – a computer, aggregating the credit data of the consumer to determine one or more features required by a Machine Learning (ML) model; creating a feature array structured for ML input from the aggregated credit data, and submitting the feature array to the ML model, the ML model having been trained using credit profiles of a plurality of consumers.
The computer, aggregating the credit data of the consumer to determine one or more features required by a Machine Learning (ML) model; creating a feature array structured for ML input from the aggregated credit data, and submitting the feature array to the ML model, the ML model having been trained using credit profiles of a plurality of consumers are recited at a high-level or generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that, they amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h). 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer, receiving, a request to perform at least one financial simulation of a financial profile pertaining to a consumer, the request comprising metadata specifying a hypothetical action to be simulated on the consumer's financial profile; receiving a credit data of the consumer, wherein the credit data includes at least one of a credit score, tradeline, credit inquiry, or a public record of the consumer; aggregating the credit data of the consumer to determine one or more features required by a Machine Learning (ML) model; creating a feature array structured for ML input from the aggregated credit data, submitting the feature array to the ML model, the ML model having been trained using credit profiles of a plurality of consumers; and generating a prediction of an impact of the hypothetical action specified by the metadata on the consumer's financial profile based on an output of the ML model, amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computer. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations individually. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed individually are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 merely further explains the abstract idea.
When viewed individually the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 103 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 101
The Applicant states that the “claim language does not recite the identified method of organizing human activity” (page 8) and “that the Examiner's characterization of the claims as reciting the asserted method of organizing human activity is not supported by the claim language, and the claims satisfy Step 2A, Prong One” (page 9). The Examiner disagrees with these sentences because the claims are an improvement of the abstract idea only. They are a business solution to a business problem of making financial predictions. The applicant has not shown how the claims improve a computer or other technology, invoke a particular machine, transform matter, or provide more than a general link between the abstraction and the technology, MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e). The machine learning model of the claims is a general computer-implemented element only and not a technical improvement. The Examiner disagrees “that the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the alleged exception into a practical application” (page 11). The claims do not provide an improvement over prior systems. They only add details to the abstract idea and merely apply the abstract idea on a general computer. The claims do not use generic and conventional components in a non-conventional manner. Instead, the invention uses conventional components arranged in a conventional manner to perform a conventional process. The model is conventional and operates in a conventional manner. “Machine learning” is just a label for the model. No actual learning occurs. Applicant’s remarks about why these limitations provide a practical application fail to surface any technical improvement identified in the specification and, therefore this is not an inventive concept and significantly more.
35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 103 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARLA HUDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
