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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to an amendment received on 4/21/26 for patent application 18/919,929.
2. Claims 1,17, 20 are amended.
3. Claims 5-7 are cancelled.
4. Claims 1-4, 8-20 are pending.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argues#1
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Amended claim 1 now expressly incorporates the limitations previously recited in claims 5-7, such that the independent claim is directed not merely to generating probabilities for a selected disputed transaction, but to a specific computer- implemented architecture for analyzing an entire bank dispute case and presenting the resulting analysis through linked graphical user interfaces. In particular, amended claim 1 now requires, for each of the disputed transactions in the case, determining feature values, determining denial and approval probabilities, determining a transaction score for the respective disputed transaction, determining a case score for the bank dispute case based on the transaction scores, generating a second graphical user interface including the case score and aggregate case indicators, and updating that second graphical user interface in response to user selection of a hyperlink to display details of the indicated disputed transaction or data feature. Those limitations materially change the § 101 analysis because they focus the claim on a particular computerized technique for aggregating, prioritizing, and navigating dispute-case information, not on a generalized business concept. The Office Action characterizes the claims as a "commercial interaction" and therefore as a certain method of organizing human activity.
That characterization is too generalized and does not reflect what amended claim 1 actually requires. The claim does not recite negotiating with a customer, deciding whether to honor a chargeback, granting credit, managing a business relationship, or otherwise prescribing a rule for conducting commerce.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations (determining feature values, determining denial and approval probabilities, determining a transaction score for the respective disputed transaction, determining a case score for the bank dispute case based on the transaction scores, including the case score and aggregate case indicators, to display details of the indicated disputed transaction or data feature) are part of the identified abstract idea, see the section 101 rejection below.
The additional elements outside of the abstract idea (the second graphical and updating the second graphical user interface, and using the hyperlink associated with the second graphical user interface) are elements recited at a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity, which are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#2
Instead, the claim recites processor-executed determination of feature-based probabilities and scores, followed by generation and updating of graphical user interfaces that expose those computed outputs in a particular way. The Specification confirms that the problem being addressed is not the abstract idea of "handling a dispute" in the business sense, but the technical and operational problem that dispute review was conventionally left to "the sole discretion of a case manager," who individually analyzed whatever evidence was present in the customer's account. Specification 1 [0003]. The disclosed solution is an "integrated outcome model" that "assess[es] probability of denials and approvals," "interprets the financial data of closed transactions," and "predicts future results," with those results being used to "reduce analysis time and increase efficiency, streamlining dispute case management." Specification 11 [0005], [0023]. The focus of the claim, read as a whole, is thus computer-implemented data analysis and interface functionality for processing large dispute datasets, not a fundamental economic practice or other method of organizing human activity.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argued the claims present a technical improvement. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (determining a probability to whether a disputed transaction is approved or denied) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#3
The rejection is also incomplete because it effectively abstracts away the claim's technological details. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, amended claim 1 still requires machine determination of multiple feature values from transaction details, machine determination of denial and approval probabilities from those feature values, machine determination of transaction-level scores across multiple disputed transactions, machine determination of a case-level score from those transaction-level scores, and machine-driven updating of a second graphical user interface in response to hyperlink selection. That claimed sequence is not a mere instruction to "analyze a dispute on a computer." The Specification explains that the techniques operate at both the case and transaction level, aggregate metrics to simplify analysis, and provide supporting explanations that allow a case processor to quickly determine an appropriate course of action. Specification " [0024]-[0027]. The Specification further explains that the case level score may be included in the header of each case, that the active queue may be filtered or sorted by score, and that transaction details may include a transaction level score and corresponding tooltip. Specification 1 [0027]. Those disclosures reinforce that the invention is directed to a particular computer-based information-processing and user-interface solution for handling a volume of data that conventional manual review did not efficiently address.
Even if the Office were to maintain that some claim aspects can be described at a high level as involving dispute analysis, amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The Specification expressly states that "by presenting simplified scores and highlighting particular data within expansive user interfaces comprising large amounts of data," the disclosed techniques "may present improved user interfaces when compared to systems that merely output the data for a user to individually analyze." Specification " [0005], [0023]. The Specification goes on to explain that, where links are provided, "the system provides a mechanism for a user to quickly navigate through these expansive files to the pieces of data that have a highest amount of influence on a case management dispute, further improving the user interfaces provided herein." Id. Amended claim 1 now directly captures that disclosed improvement. The claim requires not only a second graphical user interface containing the case score and aggregate indicators, but also hyperlink-driven updating of that second graphical user interface to reveal details of the indicated transaction or data feature. See Specification 11 [0063]-[0064]. This is not insignificant post-solution activity. It is the claimed mechanism by which the computer system turns model outputs into a navigable, prioritized interface that enables efficient drill-down into the most relevant portions of an expansive dispute file. The practical application is therefore concrete and technology-rooted: improving how the computer system organizes, surfaces, and navigates dispute-case information for the user.
The Office Action states that the "one or more processors," "graphical user interface," and "display device" are recited at a high level of generality and merely used in their ordinary capacity. That analysis improperly considers components in isolation rather than the ordered combination recited by the claim. Applicant does not rely on the mere presence of a processor or display as the basis for eligibility. Rather, eligibility arises from the specific arrangement in which those components cooperate to determine transaction-level and case-level outputs from multiple disputed transactions and to generate a second graphical user interface that can be interactively updated through hyperlinks to expose underlying details. The Specification describes this arrangement in concrete terms. For each disputed transaction, the system determines feature values, denial probability, approval probability, and a transaction score; it then determines a case score for the bank dispute case; it generates a second graphical user interface including the case score and one or more aggregate indicators such as the transaction having the most extreme denial probability, the transaction having the most extreme approval probability, or the data feature having the most extreme evaluated value across the disputed transactions; and it updates that second graphical user interface upon hyperlink selection to include details of the indicated disputed transaction or data feature. Specification 11 [0062]- [0064]. The claim therefore recites a particular interface workflow tied to a particular analytics workflow. The processors and GUIs are not simply invoked as generic tools to implement an otherwise abstract business rule; they are the claimed mechanism by which the invention achieves the disclosed improvement in speed, prioritization, and navigation of complex dispute- case data. See also Specification 11 [0005], [0023]-[0027].
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is pointed to MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement
Applicant cited paras 5, 23-27, 62-64, along with para 67-69 is reproduced below:
[0005] The objective of dispute case management is to process dispute cases quickly, accurately, and efficiently. The techniques described herein offer an integrated outcome model to assess probability of denials and approvals. This model interprets the financial data of closed transactions and predicts future results. These results can be used to reduce analysis time and increase efficiency, streamlining dispute case management. Furthermore, by presenting simplified scores and highlighting particular data within expansive user interfaces comprising large amounts of data, the techniques described herein may present improved user interfaces when compared to systems that merely output the data for a user to individually analyze. In examples where links are provided, the system provides a mechanism for a user to quickly navigate through these expansive files to the pieces of data that have a highest amount of influence on a case management dispute, further improving the user interfaces provided herein.
[0023] The objective of dispute case management is to process dispute cases quickly, accurately, and efficiently. The techniques described herein offer an integrated outcome model to assess probability of denials and approvals. This model interprets the financial data of closed transactions and predicts future results. These results can be used to reduce analysis time and increase efficiency, streamlining dispute case management. Furthermore, by presenting simplified scores and highlighting particular data within expansive user interfaces comprising large amounts of data, the techniques described herein may present improved user interfaces when compared to systems that merely output the data for a user to individually analyze. In examples where links are provided, the system provides a mechanism for a user to quickly navigate through these expansive files to the pieces of data that have a highest amount of influence on a case management dispute, further improving the user interfaces provided herein.
[0024] The techniques described herein utilize a business intelligence model to predict denial and approval probability. The model assesses the risk at both a case and transaction level. Analytics performed on closed cases are used to calculate future probability scores. The outcome probability model analyzes a range of data features to determine the score, including transaction amounts, number of disputed transactions per dispute case, and length of time between transaction settlement and report of dispute. These scores are easily identifiable and may be, in some instances, grouped into High, Average and Low risk categories. Supplemental descriptive text may summarize the definition and rationale of the score, allowing the case processor to quickly determine the appropriate course of action. For instance, the supplemental descriptive text may summarize Shapley values when such values are used in the determination of the score. Additionally, the scores may be used as criteria for the automatic assignment of cases to processors.
[0025] The techniques described herein include the integration of the outcome probability model to perform analysis at both a case and transaction level. The metrics may be aggregated in a fashion that simplifies analysis of the metrics, such as, in one example, a simplistic, consumable classification system of High, Average and Low.
[0026] Case processors may have access to enhanced tooltips with supporting text explaining the importance of each data feature comprised within the approval or denial scores and the rationale behind each probability score. The active queue may allow filtering and sorting of dispute cases by probability level and/or approval/denial score. Users in the dispute administrator role may have the ability to assign probability scores as parameters for the auto assignment of cases. In some instances, approval and denial scores may be two separate scores. In other instances, an approval score and a denial score may be a same score, or simply scores that, when added together, equal a constant number (e.g., 100).
[0027] Each record in the active queue may have an easily identifiable score with a tooltip that includes the definition and metrics utilized to generate the score. The case level score is also included in the header of each case. The active queue may be filtered and/or sorted by score. Within the transaction details of each case, there is a transaction level score and corresponding tooltip.
[0062] In some instances, for each of the one or more disputed transactions, and for each of the plurality of data features, analysis module 222 may determine, based at least in part on the one or more details of the respective disputed transaction, the data feature value for the respective data feature. Based at least in part on the respective data feature value of each respective value, analysis module 222 may determine the denial probability for the respective disputed transaction. Based at least in part on the respective data feature value of each respective value, analysis module 222 may also determine the approval probability for the respective disputed transaction. Based at least in part on the denial probability for of the respective disputed transaction and the approval probability for the respective disputed transaction, analysis module 222 may determine a transaction score for the respective disputed transaction. In some instances, for the disputed transactions in the dispute case, analysis module 222 may determine the importance of each data feature in the dispute case with an importance metric using Shapley values. Analysis module 222 may aggregate these metrics and award the case an overall text description. Based on the values of each data feature and the importance metrics, analysis module 222 may determine a case disposition for the disputed transactions in a dispute case.
[0063] Based at least in part on the transaction score for each of the one or more disputed transactions, analysis module 222 may determine a case score for the bank dispute case. In such instances, communication module 220 may generate a second graphical user interface including at least an indication of the case score and one or more of an indication of a disputed transaction of the plurality of transactions having a most extreme denial probability, an indication a disputed transaction of the plurality of transactions having a most extreme approval probability, and an indication of a data feature of the plurality of data features having a most extreme positively evaluated data feature value or a most extreme negatively evaluated data feature value compared to each other data feature of the plurality of data features across each of the one or more disputed transactions. Communication module 220 may output, for display on the display device, the second graphical user interface.
[0064] In some such instances, the indications may include a hyperlink that, when communication module 220 receives an indication of user input selecting the hyperlink, communication module 220 may update the second graphical user interface to include details of the disputed transaction or the data feature indicated by the respective indication.
[0067] In some instances, communication module 220 may automatically send a disposition for the bank dispute case to a dispute processing system based at least in part on the denial probability and the approval probability for at least the first disputed transaction.
[0068] FIG. 3 is an example screenshot of graphical user interface 300 illustrating case-level scores for a bank dispute case, in accordance with the techniques described herein. When a report is initially run for a bank dispute case, a computing device may produce a case-level score in graphical user interface 300 and output graphical user interface for display on a display device. The case-level score may generally indicate whether the algorithm predicts the bank dispute case should result in a denial or an approval. In some instances, clicking on the score within the graphical user interface may produce an explanation of data features that had the greatest impact on the case-level score, such as the total case value exceeding a certain amount or a total number of transactions exceeding a certain amount. In other instances, this information is automatically included in graphical user interface 300 without requiring user input. In some instances, the user may also provide user input to navigate deeper into the analysis to view transaction-level scores, as shown in FIG. 4.
[0069] FIG. 4 is an example screenshot of graphical user interface 400 illustrating transaction-level scores for a bank dispute case, in accordance with the techniques described herein. Each transaction may have a score displayed next to the Transaction ID. The scores are color-coded and represent High, Average or Low Denial probability level. The approval risk level may also be calculated and displayed when the user engages the tooltip.
It can be seen from the instant specification that there is no technical explanation of the asserted improvement (an improved user interface) and reflected in the claims. The additional elements( the graphical user interfaces, processors, hyperlink) are recited at a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity and as such are being used as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea.
The displaying of data on a graphical user interfaces and using the hyperlink in the window of a graphical user interface is a graphical user interface operating in its ordinary capacity.
Therefore, there are no additional elements in the claims that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#4
Amended claim 1 is also not reasonably characterized as something that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The claim requires repeated feature extraction and repeated probability determinations across multiple disputed transactions, followed by derivation of transaction scores, derivation of a case score from those transaction scores, generation of a second interface with aggregate indicators, and interactive updating of that interface to reveal underlying details. The Specification repeatedly emphasizes that the disclosed interfaces deal with "expansive user interfaces comprising large amounts of data" and are specifically designed to simplify and accelerate analysis of that data. Specification 11 [0005], [0023]. That is precisely the sort of computer-centered implementation that moves the claim beyond any alleged mental process or generalized human review activity. A human reviewer may ultimately use the displayed results, but the claim is directed to how the computer system produces, aggregates, and presents those results in an improved way.
The present amendment also directly addresses a significant premise of the rejection. The Office Action discussed claim 6 separately and asserted that the second graphical user interface was merely a generic extra element. The amended independent claim now goes further by incorporating not only the second graphical user interface of former claim 6, but also the hyperlink-based updating behavior of former claim 7 and the transaction-score/case-score framework of former claim 5. In other words, the independent claim now expressly recites the case-level aggregation and drill-down navigation features that the Specification identifies as improving dispute-case processing and improving user interfaces. Specification 11 [0005], [0023], [0062]-[0064].
Examiner Response
Examiner did not state in the section 101 rejection, that the claims are reciting a mental process (something that can be performed mentally with a pen and paper solution).
The section 101 rejection stated that the claims are reciting the identified abstract idea (steps for analyzing disputed transactions), a commercial interaction.
Also see the current section 101 rejection below.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#5
In addition, the Office Action's prior art discussion separately acknowledges that the prior art of record did not teach the limitations of claims 5-8. Office Action, section titled "No Prior Art for claims 3, 5-8, 18." Although patent eligibility is distinct from novelty or obviousness, that record at least undercuts any suggestion that the newly incorporated case-scoring, second-interface, and hyperlink-update arrangement is merely a routine or conventional appendage. At minimum, the ordered combination now recited in amended claim 1 is a specific and non-generic implementation, not a token instruction to apply an abstract idea on generic hardware.
For the same reasons, amended claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The ordered combination of claim limitations is important: the claim requires feature-based probability analysis for disputed transactions, transaction-level scoring across the set of disputed transactions, case-level scoring derived from those transaction-level scores, generation of a second graphical user interface containing aggregate indicators derived from that analysis, and interactive hyperlink-based updating of that interface to expose the corresponding details. That combination is not an incidental display of a result after generic analysis. It is a specific computer-implemented solution for reducing analysis time, increasing efficiency, and improving navigation through expansive dispute-case files. Specification 11 [0005], [0023]- [0027], [0062]-[0064]. When evaluated as a whole, amended claim 1 is directed to a practical technological improvement in computer-assisted dispute-case analysis and interface operation, and therefore is not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1, and claims depending therefrom, are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One; are integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two; and, in any event, recite significantly more under Step 2B. Withdrawal of the § 101 rejection is therefore respectfully requested.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner is not required under current Examination policy to evaluate under Step 2B, whether additional elements constitute “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities,” [“WURC activities”] unless an additional element(s) were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong 2. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). Here, the condition precedent was not met and the Non-Final Office Action determined the additional elements were no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception using a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f) also see the section 101 rejection below.
Therefore there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Also see the Response to Applicant argues#3 above.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#6
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Office Action indicated that claims 3 and 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although Applicant does not acquiesce to the assertion that the other claims are validly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, in an effort to expedite prosecution, Applicant has amended claims 1, 17, and 20 to include the subject matter from previously presented claim 7 and all intermediate dependent claims. Applicant thanks the Examiner for this, rendering the previous rejection of claims 1, 17, and 20 moot. Claims 2-4, 8-16, and 18-19 each depend from one of claims 1 and 17, and are patentable for at least the reasons the independent claims are patentable. Based on the amendments to independent claims 1, 17, and 20, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-4 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Examiner Response
Based on the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C 103(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 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.
1. Claims 1-4, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 17, 20 are directed to a method, device and computer readable medium
which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Representative claim 17 recites the limitations of:
A computing device comprising one or more processors configured to:
receive a request to analyze a bank dispute case, wherein the bank
dispute case comprises one or more disputed transactions;
for at least a first disputed transaction of the one or more disputed
transactions:
for each of a plurality of data features, determine, based at least in part on
one or more details of the respective disputed transaction, a data feature value
for the respective data feature;
based at least in part on the respective data feature value of each
respective value, determine a denial probability for the respective disputed
transaction;
and
based at least in part on the respective data feature value of each
respective value, determine an approval probability for the respective disputed
transaction; and
in response to receiving an indication of user input selecting the first
disputed transaction:
generate a graphical user interface comprising at least: an indication of the
denial probability for the first disputed transaction, an indication of the approval
probability for the first disputed transaction, and at least one indication of an
importance metric for a first data feature of the plurality of data features; and
output, for display on a display device, the graphical user interface;
for each of the one or more disputed transactions:
for each of the plurality of data features, determine, based at least in part on the one or more details of the respective disputed transaction, the data feature value for the respective data feature;
based at least in part on the respective data feature value of each respective value, determine the denial probability for the respective disputed transaction;
based at least in part on the respective data feature value of each respective value, determine the approval probability for the respective disputed transaction; and based at least in part on the denial probability for of the respective disputed transaction and the approval probability for the respective disputed transaction, determine a transaction score for the respective disputed transaction; and based at least in part on the transaction score for each of the one or more disputed transactions, determine a case score for the bank dispute case;
generate a second graphical user interface comprising at least:
an indication of the case score;
and one or more of:
an indication of a disputed transaction of the plurality of transactions having a most extreme denial probability; an indication a disputed transaction of the plurality of transactions having a most extreme approval probability;
an indication of an importance metric for a data feature of the plurality of data features across each of the one or more disputed transactions; and output, for display on the display device, the second graphical user interface, wherein the indications comprise a hyperlink that, when the one or more processors receive an indication of user input selecting the hyperlink, the one or more processors are further configured to update the second graphical user interface to include details of the disputed transaction or the data feature indicated by the respective indication.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of
the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claim recites elements that are in bold above, which covers performance of the
limitation as a commercial interaction, steps for analyzing disputed transactions
(e.g., receive a request to analyze a bank dispute case, wherein the bank dispute
case comprises one or more disputed transactions; for at least a first disputed
transaction of the one or more disputed transactions: for each of a plurality of
data features, determine, based at least in part on one or more details of the
respective disputed transaction, a data feature value for the respective data
feature; based at least in part on the respective data feature value of each
respective value, determine a denial probability for the respective disputed
transaction; and based at least in part on the respective data feature value of
each respective value, determine an approval probability for the respective
disputed transaction; and in response to receiving an indication of user input
selecting the first disputed transaction: an indication of the denial probability for
the first disputed transaction, an indication of the approval probability for the first
disputed transaction, and at least one indication of an importance metric for a
first data feature of the plurality of data features; and output, for display; for each of the one or more disputed transactions: for each of the plurality of data features, determine, based at least in part on the one or more details of the respective disputed transaction, the data feature value for the respective data feature; based at least in part on the respective data feature value of each respective value, determine the denial probability for the respective disputed transaction; based at least in part on the respective data feature value of each respective value, determine the approval probability for the respective disputed transaction; and based at least in part on the denial probability for of the respective disputed transaction and the approval probability for the respective disputed transaction, determine a transaction score for the respective disputed transaction; and based at least in part on the transaction score for each of the one or more disputed transactions, determine a case score for the bank dispute case; an indication of the case score; and one or more of: an indication of a disputed transaction of the plurality of transactions having a most extreme denial probability; an indication a disputed transaction of the plurality of transactions having a most extreme approval probability; an indication of an importance metric for a data feature of the plurality of data features across each of the one or more disputed transactions; and output, for display to include details of the disputed transaction or the data feature indicated by the respective indication)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of
the limitation as a Commercial Interaction, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of
Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1,20 are abstract for similar reasons.
(Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that
are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words
"apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement
an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an
abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the
judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claims 1, 17,20 includes the following additional elements:
-One or more processors
-A graphical user interface
-A display device
-A computing device
- A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
-A second graphical user interface
-Hyperlink associated with the second graphical user interface
The one or more processors, graphical user interface, display device, computing device, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, second graphical user interface and hyperlink associated with the second graphical user interface are recited at a high level of generality and are being used in their ordinary capacity and are being used as a tool for implementing the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not
indicative of a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered
combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they
do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Therefore claims 1,17, 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical
application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not
integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and
as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an
"inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of
the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited
in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer
components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive
concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 1,17,20 are not patent
eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-4, 8-16, 19-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1,17,20 and thus correspond to Certain Methods
of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Claims 12-13, further defines the identified abstract idea recited in claim 1. The
additional element of (the prediction model using a normalization and Shapley values)
are recited at a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity and are
being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered
combination. Therefore, the dependent claims (2-4, 8-16, 19-20) are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-4, 8-20 are not patent-eligible.
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 MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights