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 December 3, 2025. Election of claims 1-12, without traverse, in response to Restriction/Election requirement is acknowledged. Applicants are respectfully requested to file the Power of attorney documents and also cancel the non-elected claims 13-14 in their response to this office action. Claims 1-12 have been examined. The rejections and a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art 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, based on the financial metric prediction request, financial data;
input the financial data to one or more trained machine learning models;
output, using the one or more trained machine learning models, one or more preliminary predictions of the future financial metric;
input the one or more preliminary predictions of the future financial metric to a regression model; and
generate, using the regression model, a prediction of the future financial metric” 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, based on the financial metric prediction request, financial data;
input the financial data to one or more trained machine learning models;
output, using the one or more trained machine learning models, one or more preliminary predictions of the future financial metric;
input the one or more preliminary predictions of the future financial metric to a regression model; and
generate, using the regression model, a prediction of the future financial metric” 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 and one or more trained machine learning models, 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 and one or more trained machine learning models 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 one or more trained machine learning models 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 one or more trained machine learning models are 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 one or more 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, based on the financial metric prediction request, 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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-12 would be allowable, over prior art, if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
The closest prior art of record, (Karbowiak; Kamil US Pub. 2025/0259247 A1 and Cella; Charles Howard et al. (US Pub. 2022/0366494 A1), considered individually or in combination, fail to teach the steps of “output, using the one or more trained machine learning models, one or more preliminary predictions of the future financial metric; input the one or more preliminary predictions of the future financial metric to a regression model; and generate, using the regression model, a prediction of the future financial metric”. Page 3 of 13Appl. No.: 14/331,106For these reasons claims 1 and 12 are deemed allowable over prior art. Dependent claims 2-11, are allowable over prior art by virtue of dependency on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Mozeika; David James (US Pub. 2020/0242699 A1) discloses computing services that provide consolidated financial data associated with a user, along with metrics that indicate the user's performance in his/her savings. A service system can receive financial account-based information associated with a user and link that information to a user profile of the user. The financial account-based information may be used by the FLO service system to obtain financial transaction data from individual ones of the user's financial accounts. The financial transaction data may then be used to dynamically generate one or more metric values, such as free cash flow, FLO score, indicating the free cash flow as a percentage of cash outflow, and the like. These metric values may be determined dynamically over various time frames and displayed to provide a picture of the user's financial health. The system may also enable interactions with a financial advisor.
(b) Chopra; Amit et al. (US Pub. 2015/0363888 A1) discloses systems, methods and computer program products for use in financial forecast systems, where historical financial data is analyzed for purposes of providing projected financial statements. An exemplary apparatus is configured to receive financial data, from a predetermined period of time in the past that is associated with a business entity requesting to receive projected financial statements, analyze the financial data from the predetermined period of time in the past, and determine based on the analysis a financial forecast for the entity for a predetermined period of time in the future, and provide one or more projected financial statements for the predetermined time period in the future based at least partially on the financial forecast of the entity.
6. 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.
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
January 23, 2026