DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on June 17, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 1, 17-20, canceled claims 3-9, 21-25 and added claims 26-33. Currently, claims 1, 13-14, 16-20, 26-33 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 13-14, 16-20 are maintained in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 17-20.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 13-14, 16-20 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 17-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 6/17/26 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues on p. 12 of the remarks that the 101 rejection is improper. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant argues that the claims are not related to an steps of conducting commercial interactions or business relations. Examiner disagrees and notes the claims are organizing transactions that are clearly commercial transactions. One just has to look at figures 1-3 of applicant’s specifications to show the transactions are commercial transactions but also clear based on the idea that the transactions have values and are determined for time periods. Applicant argues that operating on transaction data is not equivalent to conducting or organizing transactions. Examiner disagrees and notes the transaction data (commercial activity) is being organized which is sufficient in determining whether or not there is an abstract idea. Applicant argues on p. 13 of the remarks that the claims are directed to a practical application. Applicant makes comparisons to the Ex parte Desjardins decision. Examiner notes the claims and the rational for why the claims were eligible are substantially different than applicant’s claims. To the extent the clustering can even be considered AI as opposed to a specific algorithm or modeling, the clustering is being applied as opposed to being improved. Applicant further argues that the claims show improvements. Examiner notes the improvements are improvements to an abstract idea as opposed to a computer or another technology. Generating a higher quality prediction model is not improving the functioning of a computer but rather implemented by a computer to perform such a model. Improving the model is an improvement to an abstract idea. Therefore, the 101 rejections are 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.
Claims 1, 13-14, 16-20, 26-33 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (system, method and non-transitory computer readable medium). Claims 1, 3-9, 13-14, 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 19-20 recites the abstract idea of determining a dataset of transactions occurring during a first time period and determining a subset of related transactions from the dataset of transactions, where each transaction in the subset of related transactions shares at least one common attribute and selecting a first transaction interval pattern and selecting a first clustering criteria, wherein the first clustering criteria comprises a threshold deviation from the first transaction interval pattern and based on the first transaction interval pattern and the first clustering criteria, identifying a cluster of transactions from the subset of related transactions and wherein identifying the cluster of transactions from the subset of related transactions comprises: determining an interval difference between the dates of at least one pair of transactions in the subset of related transactions, and wherein each of the at least one pair of transactions comprises a first date having a first day and a first month, and a second date having a second day and a second month wherein weekend days are discounted from contributing to the interval difference and determining the cluster of transactions as the transactions of the subset of related transactions that comply with the first transaction interval pattern and the threshold deviation from first transaction interval pattern and wherein determining the interval difference between the dates of at least one pair of transactions comprises: determining a first interval difference value comprising a difference between the first day of the second month and the second day of the second month and determining a second interval difference value comprising a difference between the second day of the first month and the first day of the first month and determining a third interval difference value comprising a difference between the first day of the month following the first month and the second day of the second month and determining a fourth interval difference value comprising a difference between the first day of the first month and the second day of the month immediately preceding the second month and determining the interval difference based on the first interval difference value, the second interval difference value, the third interval difference value and the fourth interval difference value wherein determining the interval difference comprises determining a minimum of the first interval difference value, the second interval difference value, the third interval difference and the fourth interval difference value as the interval difference and generating a model of periodic transactions based on the cluster of transactions, the model including an interval related to the first transaction interval pattern, and a common model attribute based on the at least one common attribute. The claims are directed to a type of technique for predicting reoccurring transactions by comparing and clustering data an using a model. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are certain method of organizing human activity such as commercial interactions including business relations. Applicant’s claims are organizing human activity including commercial interactions because the transactions are human activity and the transactions are organized by being clustered and having determinations made on them. Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as computer-implemented, a system comprising one or more processors, memory comprising computer executable instructions which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations, and non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform operations) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as computer-implemented, a system comprising one or more processors, memory comprising computer executable instructions which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations, and non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform operations (as evidenced by para [0140]-[0155] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 13-14, 26-33 also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing performing a viability check on the cluster; and in response to the cluster passing the viability check, generating the model of periodic transactions and marking the transactions of the cluster as used and mark the transactions of the cluster as used and select a second transaction interval pattern, the second transaction interval pattern being longer in duration than the first transaction interval pattern and based on the second transaction interval pattern and the first clustering criteria, identify a further cluster of transactions from the subset of related transactions that are not marked as used and perform a viability check on the further cluster and in response to the further cluster passing the viability check, generate a model of periodic transactions, the model including an interval related to the second transaction interval pattern, and a common attribute based on the at least one common attribute and use the model of periodic transactions to predict at least one future recurring transaction having an interval related to the second transaction interval pattern and a common attribute based on the at least one common attribute and wherein performing a viability check on the cluster comprises checking one or more of: a recency of a latest transaction in the cluster; an extent to which individual transaction intervals of the cluster match a determined pattern; and a number of unique transactions in the cluster.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 13-14, 16-20, 26-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tietzen et al. (US 2011/0320246 A1), a system of generating links between local merchants and a marketing system that may be operable to register members, merchants, community programs, intermediaries and other entities with the marketing system
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is (571)270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM to 5 pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571- 270-5396. 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.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights