DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 12/18/2025, Applicant, on 2/26/2026, amended Claims 1, 5, 9-10, cancelled Claims 2-4, and added Claims 11-19. Claims 1 and 5-19 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §112(b) – The rejection is hereby removed in light of Applicant’s cancelling of the Claims.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed at an abstract idea, by stating that they are not directed towards organizing human activity, and that they cannot be performed in a human mind, by reciting the specific algorithm for the limitations. Examiner disagrees as the claims recite clear abstractions of both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as per the rejection below. This is stated clearly by the office action, and managing and analyzing business and commercial transactions is clearly organizing human activity. Further, this is a mere assertion that the claims are eligible under 101. Applicant does not state how or why these would not be considered abstract under Prong 1 other than saying this could not be practically done in the human mind as this could be done with a pen and paper
Applicant states that the claims are integrated because the claims recite specific details that help address the problem of determining chronological relationships between activities, and also states that the additional elements impose meaningful limits on the claim’s scope and tie it to a concrete output artifacts as the claims recite use of a transition graph where numbers of cases are displayed in association with transitions and/or a rout table with defined columns, which are specific output formats. Examiner disagrees as the claim limitations are not practically integrated as the additional elements of these claims are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This is utilization of current technologies, “Applying It”, similar to that of Alice, and does not make these limitations eligible under 101, as there is no improvement to any additional element, alone or in combination. Further, there is no improvement to a technology or any technological process and performing these actions on an apparatus with a processor would be utilization of current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §103 – The rejection is hereby removed in light of Applicant’s arguments and amendments, for the reasons found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
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.
Alice - Claims 1 and 5-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite limitations to a determination process of determining, from behavior history information of a subject, a plurality of factors of change in behavioral tendency of the subject based on behaviors before and after the factors (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), a presentation process of presenting in chronological order the factors determined by the determination process (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, a judgment, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and a rule generation process of generating a plurality of prediction rules for each of a plurality of events extracted from the behavior history information of a plurality of the subjects and each serving as a candidate for a factor that causes the subject to change a behavior ,wherein the rule generation process includes:(i) generating training data, from the behavior history information, that associates, for each of the plurality of events, (A) a covariate indicative of a feature of the subject at a time point of occurrence of the event, (B) the event as an occurred event, and (C) a result indicative of an indicator value representing a degree of change in behavioral tendency after the time point of occurrence of the event;(ii) generating, for each of the plurality of events, event-specific data indicative of a change in an amount related to the behavioral tendency in accordance with occurrence or absence of the event;(iii) generating, for each of the plurality of events, a decision tree using the training data; and(iv) generating the plurality of prediction rules from the decision tree, each prediction rule associating (A) a condition corresponding to a path from a root node to a leaf node of the decision tree and (B) a predicted value corresponding to the leaf node as a predicted value of the degree of change in behavioral tendency after occurrence of the event (Analyzing the Information, a evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), wherein, in the determination process, the at least one processor determines a plurality of factors that are common with a plurality of the subjects from among a plurality of the events, based on at least the predicted values and numbers of cases in which the plurality of subjects satisfy the conditions of the prediction rules, by selecting one or more of the prediction rules and identifying, as the plurality of factors, one or more events included in the selected prediction rules (Analyzing the Information, a evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and wherein, in the presentation process:(i) the at least one processor calculates, for each of a plurality of factors including the plurality of factors identified in the determination process, a number of cases corresponding to the factor, including classifying cases according to an order of occurrence of the events serving as the plurality of factors and calculating a number of cases for each classified order; (ii) the at least one processor ranks the plurality of factors based on the calculated number of cases and determines a chronological order of the plurality of factors based on the ranking; and(iii) the at least one processor outputs, via an output section, at least one of (A) a transition graph in which symbols representing the plurality of factors are connected in the chronological order and numbers of cases are displayed in association with transitions, or (B) a table including a route ID, a route, a number of cases, and an average increased amount for a route (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, a judgment, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. mitigating fraud/risk, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting an apparatus, processor, and storage medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of a Commercial Interaction. For example, determining, from behavior history information of a subject, a plurality of factors of change in behavioral tendency of the subject based on behaviors before and after the factors encompasses a supervisor or manager watching someone, either an employee or a customer or anyone, to see how they are behaving and then determining what has changed from what they have seen in the past, which is an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for a Commercial Interaction, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The processor, apparatus, and medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). 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 an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0093] In the latter case, each of the analysis apparatuses 1 and 2 is implemented by, for example, a computer that executes instructions of a program that is software implementing the foregoing functions. Fig. 9 illustrates an example of such a computer (hereinafter referred to as "computer C"). The compute C includes at least one processor C1 and at least one
memory C2. The memory C2 stores a program (analysis program) P for causing the computer C to operate as the analysis apparatus 1 or 2. The processor C1 of the computer C retrieves the program P from the memory C2 and executes the program P, so that the functions of the analysis apparatus 1 or 2 are implemented.
[0094] The processor C1 may be, for example, a central
processing unit (CPU), a graphic processing unit (GPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), a micro processing unit (MPU), a floating point number processing unit (FPU), a physics processing unit (PPU), a microcontroller, or a combination thereof. The memory C2 may be, for example, a flash memory, a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid state drive (SSD), or a combination thereof.”
Which shows that any generic apparatus/computer with a processor and memory can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the apparatus, processor, memory, etc., nor the transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 5-8 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
New Claims 11-19 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them such as wherein the decision tree is generated using different mathematical means, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 5-19 have overcome the prior art and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Pinchuk (U.S. Publication No. 2013/021,8616), Heyrani (U.S. Publication No. 2022/035,1301), Domeniconi (U.S. Publication No. 2025/032,1756), and Cheung (U.S. Publication No. 2017/034,6914). Pinchuk, a method of predicting a plurality of behavioral events and method of displaying information, teaches an analysis apparatus comprising at least one processor, a determination process of determining, from behavior history information of a subject, a plurality of factors of change in behavioral tendency of the subject based on behaviors before and after the factors, a presentation process of presenting the factors determined by the determination process where they are determined by prediction, and these are displayed, but it doesn’t teach this is done in chronological order. Heyrani, a method and system for behavioral signal generation and processing, teaches processing and displaying of behavior information such as changes in behavior in chronological order with determination of factors. Neither Pinchuk nor Heyrani explicitly teaches gives priority to events. Cheung, a system and method to prioritize and schedule notifications with user behavior and contextual data analysis, teaches determining a priority of events and scheduling of notifications of behavior information. Neither Pinchuk nor Heyrani explicitly teaches using a loss function to calculate a value. Domeniconi, a system and method for generating interaction sequence disruption predictions, teaches use of a loss function as in [0156-157] in conjunction with determining of behaviors and predictions, but not the specific manner as to how the rule generation process, which includes generating training data using a covariate , event, and result, generating event-specific data, generating a decision tree, generating prediction rules, along with the presentation process using calculation of factors. None of the prior art explicitly teaches this the specific manner as to how the rule generation process, which includes generating training data using a covariate , event, and result, generating event-specific data, generating a decision tree, generating prediction rules, along with the presentation process using calculation of factors, along with the other limitations of the claims, as pointed out by Applicant on pgs. 4 and 5 of the Remarks of 2/26/2026, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1, 9, and 10, and their dependents, are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250321756 A1
Domeniconi; Giacomo et al.
GENERATING INTERACTION SEQUENCE DISRUPTION PREDICTIONS
US 20220351301 A1
Heyrani-Nobari; Ghasem et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR BEHAVIOR SIGNAL GENERATION AND PROCESSING
US 20170346914 A1
Cheung; Chi Leung Alex et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PRIORITIZE AND SCHEDULE NOTIFICATIONS WITH USER BEHAVIOUR AND CONTEXTUAL DATA ANALYSIS
US 20170169128 A1
BATCHU KRISHNAIA HSETTY; Sumana et al.
ELECTRONIC SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MARKING HIGHLIGHTS IN A MULTIMEDIA FILE AND MANIPULATING THE MULTIMEDIA FILE USING THE HIGHLIGHTS
US 20130218616 A1
PINCHUK; STEVEN G.
METHOD OF PREDICTING A PLURALITY OF BEHAVIORAL EVENTS AND METHOD OF DISPLAYING INFORMATION
US 20250061419 A1
Morris; Louis Rick
SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES FOR DETECTING ANOMALIES IN SUPPLY CHAIN NETWORKS AND MANAGING INVENTORY EVENTS
US 20230289845 A1
Yoshinaga; Naoki
ESTIMATION SYSTEM, ESTIMATION METHOD, AND PROGRAM RECORDING MEDIUM
US 20200160364 A1
Milton; Stephen et al.
ANALYZING CONSUMER BEHAVIOR BASED ON LOCATION VISITATION
US 20200160363 A1
Milton; Stephen et al.
INFERRING CONSUMER AFFINITIES BASED ON SHOPPING BEHAVIORS WITH UNSUPERVISED MACHINE LEARNING MODELS
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 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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
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.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights