DETAILED ACTION
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 filed on June 1, 2026. Amendments to claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 12 and cancellation of claims 13-14 have been entered. Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined. The statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art was already discussed in the Office action mailed on February 6, 2026 and hence not repeated here. The rejections and response to arguments are stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) method of predicting a future financial metric, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Analysis
Step 1: In the instant case, exemplary claim 1 is directed to a method (process).
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “A method of predicting a future financial metric, comprising using one or more computer processors to:
receive, from a user, a financial metric prediction request;
obtain, from one or more data sources, financial data comprising time-series data corresponding to the financial metric prediction request;
input the time-series data to one or more trained machine learning models configured to model temporal patterns in the time-series data and to generate preliminary predictions of the future financial metric;
generate, by the trained machine learning models, the preliminary predictions of the future financial metric;
form, from the preliminary predictions, a feature vector representing the preliminary predictions;
input the feature vector to a regression model configured to combine the preliminary predictions; and
generate, by the regression model, a final prediction of the future financial metric based on the feature vector” as drafted, when considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements.
Predicting a future financial metric is a fundamental economic practice such as financial analysis.
The steps of “receive, from a user, a financial metric prediction request;
obtain, from one or more data sources, financial data comprising time-series data corresponding to the financial metric prediction request;
input the time-series data to one or more trained machine learning models configured to model temporal patterns in the time-series data and to generate preliminary predictions of the future financial metric;
generate, by the trained machine learning models, the preliminary predictions of the future financial metric;
form, from the preliminary predictions, a feature vector representing the preliminary predictions;
input the feature vector to a regression model configured to combine the preliminary predictions; and
generate, by the regression model, a final prediction of the future financial metric based on the feature vector” considered collectively is a form of fulfilling agreements between the party doing the prediction and the user. Hence, the steps of the claim, considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, covers the abstract category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity”.
That is, other than, one or more computer processors, one or more trained machine learning models, and a regression model nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of one or more computer processors, trained machine learning models and a regression model to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-6 and associated descriptions in the Specification reveals that the one or more computer processors may be generic processors suitably programmed to execute the claimed steps. The trained machine learning models and the regression model are broadly interpreted to correspond to mathematical models or software suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. Hence, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does 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, using the additional elements (identified above) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. Independent claim 12 is also not patent eligible based on similar reasoning and rationale.
Dependent claims 2-11, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claims 2-5, the steps “wherein the regression model is a ridge regression model”,
“wherein the financial metric is one or a combination selected from: accounts receivable; free cash flow; accounts payable; and total revenue”,
“wherein the trained machine learning models comprise one, or any combination, of: an Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model; a Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA) model; a Prophet model; and an Exponential Smoothing (ES) model” , “wherein the trained machine learning models consist of one of each of: the ARIMA model; the SARIMA model; the Prophet model; and the ES model” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the metric and the models used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 6-9, the steps “wherein the financial data includes financial data from a business associated with the user and financial data from one or more other businesses not associated with the user”.
“wherein receiving the financial metric prediction request comprises: receiving a natural language financial metric prediction request; inputting the natural language financial metric prediction request to a natural language processor; and generating, using the natural language processor, a Structured Query Language (SQL) query”,
“wherein obtaining, from the one or more data sources, the financial data comprises: querying, using the SQL query, one or more databases; and obtaining, from the one or more databases, the financial data” and
“wherein generating, using the natural language processor, the SQL query comprises using a Parsing Incrementally for Constrained Auto-Regressive Decoding (PICARD) model to generate the SQL query” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the software and the steps in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 10-11, the steps “further comprising, using the one or more computer processors: displaying, to the user, the final prediction of the future financial metric” and
“further comprising, using the one or more computer processors: receiving one or more adjustments to one or more metrics relating to the financial data; adjusting, based on the one or more adjustments, a Cash Conversion Cycle (CCC) metric; and displaying, to the user, the adjusted CCC metric, wherein the one or more metrics relating to the financial data comprise one, or any combination, of: a Days Inventory Outstanding (DSO) metric; a Days Payable Outstanding (DPO) metric; and a Days Sales Outstanding (DSO) metric” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps further describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
4. In response to Applicants arguments on pages 7-10 of the Applicant’s remarks that the claims are patent-eligible under 35 USC 101 when considered under MPEP 2106, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The fact that the claims are Patent-Ineligible when considered under the MPEP 2106 has already been addressed in the rejection and hence not all the details of the rejection are repeated here.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2A – Prong one:
The claims recite a method of predicting a future financial metric, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed in the rejection.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2A – Prong two:
According to MPEP 2106, limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e).
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The claim (exemplary claim 1) only recites the additional elements of one or more computer processors, trained machine learning models and a regression model to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-6 and associated descriptions in the Specification reveals that the one or more computer processors may be generic processors suitably programmed to execute the claimed steps. The trained machine learning models and the regression model are broadly interpreted to correspond to mathematical models or software suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. Hence, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Features in the claim and those recited on pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s remarks such as “(a) obtain, from one or more data sources, financial data comprising time-series data corresponding to the financial metric prediction request; …… (f) generate, by the regression model, a final prediction of the future financial metric based on the feature vector” …. “the predictions output by the individual models are used as input features for a ridge regression meta-learning model, which combines the predictions into a single forecast” may at best be characterized as an improvement in the abstract idea of predicting a future financial metric, using the additional elements as tools in their normal capacity. An improvement in abstract idea is still abstract (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea). The additional elements (identified in the rejection) are generic computer components used to apply the abstract idea. It does not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The Examiner has considered the notice of change to the MPEP issued December 5, 2025, in light of Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) in arriving at the conclusion stated in the rejection. Therefore, the Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Response to Applicants’ arguments regarding Step 2B:
As discussed in the rejection, the claims 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, using the additional elements (identified in the rejection) to perform the claimed steps, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
As discussed earlier, the steps of “outputting, using the trained machine learning models, preliminary predictions of the future financial metric; inputting the preliminary predictions to a regression model; and generating, using the regression model, a prediction of the future financial metric” may be characterized as an improvement in the abstract idea of predicting a future financial metric, using the additional elements as tools in their normal capacity. Similarly the limitations in claims 7 and 9 such as “a natural language processing pipeline in which a natural language financial metric prediction request is converted into a Structured Query Language (SQL) query, and …. the use of a PICARD model for constrained auto-regressive decoding to generate the SQL query” only further refine the abstract idea using the additional elements as tools in their normal capacity. The Applicant’s claims do not recite sufficient subject matter to take them from being in the realm of what is encompassed as an abstract idea into patentable subject matter and fail to add significantly more to “transform” the nature of the claims.
Regarding applicant's arguments alleging the lack of prior art as evidence that the claims contain an improvement and therefore are significantly more, this argument-sounding in § 102 novelty-is beside the point for a §101 inquiry. See Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., No. 1: 10cv910 (LMB/TRJ), 2014 WL 5430956, at *11 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2014) ("The concern of § 101 is not novelty, but preemption.").
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 USC § 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Ahn; Ferris et al. (US Pub. 20250104159 A1) discloses System and Methods for calculating common financial valuation measure with negative Divisors (Earnings, Cash Flow, Book Value, EBITDA, EBT and etc.).
(b) Michael Wiese et al. (GB 2627504 A) discloses a computer implemented method and system for analysing financial data. The method comprises receiving financial data in the form of financial transactions, which includes transaction details. a visual representation (200, 300, 400, 402, 500, 600) is generate using the transaction details, wherein the visual representation comprises visual entities, for depicting the transaction details of the plurality of financial transactions in a summarized manner, and one or more filters selectable to alter a summary depicted by the plurality of visual entities. The financial data is analysed by determining correctness of the transaction detail from the modified summary. The visual entities may be nodes and edges connecting the nodes, where the nodes represent account class and the edges represent a transaction flow.
6. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Narayanswamy Subramanian whose telephone number is (571) 272-6751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax number for Formal or Official faxes and Draft to the Patent Office 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.
/Narayanswamy Subramanian/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights