DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2015/035320 06/11/2015
PCT/US2015/035320 has PRO 62/010,939 06/11/2014
This application has been transferred from Examiner Benjamin Brindley to Examiner Hao Fu.
Status of Claims
Claim 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, 17-20 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim 3, 10, and 16 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended with a new limitation, “dynamically adapts based on real-time transaction patterns”. This limitation does not have support in the original specification. No patentable weight is given to this limitation.
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, 2, 4 – 9, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 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.
Claim 1 is 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. Claim1 is directed to an abstract idea, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites, in part, a system for analyzing risk data with receiving a plurality of risk variables associated with risk data, a portion of risk variables are received from a first system, a portion of risk variables are received from a second system, associate risk variables with a plurality of nodes, analyze nodes to identify consistency or inconsistency, obtaining previously stored node data, comparing the risk data, determine each node is associated with an associated related node, create a plurality of links, merge a first node and a second node, use each of the plurality of links to record data, generate a score for each of the links, determine a threat of a viable risk by comparing the score with an existing score, and transmit a notification identifying a determined threat of risk to cancel a transaction. The limitations of receiving a plurality of risk variables associated with risk data, associate risk variables, analyzing, obtaining, comparing data, determining, creating, merging, using, generating, comparing a score, and transmitting a notification to cancel a transaction, are directed to concepts of organizing human activity via the use of generic computer components. Hence, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a memory device, a computing device, a remote system, and a remote device to perform operations. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. Specification paragraphs 11 – 19 additionally reference general purpose computing systems and environments, with the recitation of the computer limitations amounting to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements to perform operations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 4 – 7 are dependent from Claim 1, and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2 and 4 – 7 also do not identify improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a), a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b), or a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, generic computing components associated with receiving a plurality of risk variables associated with risk data, associate risk variables, analyzing, obtaining, comparing data, determining, creating, merging, using, generating, comparing a score, and transmitting a notification to cancel a transaction is not an inventive concept.
Independent process Claim 8, and independent product Claim 15, are directed to an abstract idea as the Federal Circuit has held that an extended claim by claim analysis is not necessary where multiple claims are “substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea.” In this case, Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to system Claim 1.
Claims 9, 11 – 14 and 17 – 20, dependent from Claims 8 and 15, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 9, 11 – 14 and 17 – 20 also do not identify improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a), a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b), or a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, generic computing components associated with receiving a plurality of risk variables associated with risk data, associate risk variables, analyzing, obtaining, comparing data, determining, creating, merging, using, generating, comparing a score, and transmitting a notification to cancel a transaction is not an inventive concept.
Therefore, Claims 1, 2, 4 – 9, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1, 2, 4 – 9, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “claim 1 is directed to specific improvement in computer technology” by providing “concrete and technological solution to problems associated with risk analysis and data consistency in distributed environments”. Applicant further argued “the system improves the efficiency and reliability of data processing by automatically linking related data nodes and associated these links with a single account”. Examiner disagrees and points out that the specification does not mention or suggest improving computer efficiency. Paragraph 0027 of the specification merely states, “computing device 104 can use information linking two or more risk_info objects together within a single user or account”. Simply linking data associated with a single user or account together does not improve computer efficiency, and such process is a standard and common-sense procedure in data management. Applicant amended the present claims by adding “dynamically adapts based on real-time transaction patterns”. Examiner points out that such limitation is not found in the specification. Even if the specification supports this feature, real-time data processing is not sufficient to improve computer function, according to the decision of Electric Power Group v. Alstom. Any off-the-shelf computer can process transaction data in real-time.
Applicant also argued that “the system creates links and automatically connects separate nodes thereby reducing the risk of data obfuscation and enhances the accuracy of risk scoring”. Paragraph 0027-0028 of the specification describe establishing links between information nodes which come from the same report. Such feature at best improves the quality of data, but does not improve storage technology as in Enfish. The BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc. court ruled that improving the quality and organization of information added to a database is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality, because “an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality”. The storage efficiency is not changed by creating links and connecting nodes. Moreover, Applicant argued that the “improvements” in the claim “are not merely the automation of a known manual process”. Examiner disagrees that points out that the concept of Graph Theory (i.e. a branch of mathematics that studies networks made up of points connected by lines) was invented by Leonhard Euler in 1736. The present claims use the same concept to analyze relationship between risk data with the help of computer automation. Unlike the claims in McRo v. Bandai, the present claims do not recite a completely different process from how humans analyze data using graph theory.
Additionally, analyzing risk data, comparing risk data, and transmitting a notification to cancel a transaction, remains business related, and the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance includes identification of commercial or legal interactions and business relations within identification of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as an abstract idea.
Applicant’s contention that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea in that there is an improvement in computer functionality, is unpersuasive. Neither the claims nor the specification identifies elements beyond generic computer components performing generic computer functions, and there is no mention of performance metrics enhancement. Additionally, while association to a claimed technology may limit an abstract idea to a particular field, a general linking of an abstract idea to a claimed technology also does not demonstrate patent eligibility.
The claims do not provide a technological solution to a technological problem as the claims provide generically computer-implemented operations to a business field, with the focus of the instant claims not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 8 and 15, along with claims dependent from 1, 8 and 15, remain directed to an abstract idea (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activity), and do not identify an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a), a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b), or a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, the claims are not patent eligible, as they do not provide an inventive concept and a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been made on Claims 1, 2, 4 – 9, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20.
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 HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine M Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
OCT-2026
Prosecution Insights