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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 23, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on February 23, 2026. Claims 1-25 were pending in the Application. New claims 26-34 have been added. Claims 11-15 and 22-25 have been canceled, with claims 1-10 and 16-21 remaining canceled. Claim 26 is the independent claim, the remaining claims depend on claim 26. Thus claims 26-34 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “the claimed subject matter offers meaningful improvements over the conventional risk analysis systems; the claimed new and novel combination, advantageously, allows for secure, practical, and seamless access to confidential resources (e.g., bank account ledgers) associated with an individual (e.g., an applicant); the proposed new claims are directed to a non-conventional computer security and risk analysis system where the multiple computing systems recited interact and communicate over a distributed networking platform to obtain protected secondary data without compromising confidential user credentials. Similar to the self-referential table in Enfish; the claimed combination provides for computer-implemented secure mediated access to restricted data sources; the claims recite concrete technical features (e.g., series of trusted computer-implemented interfaces) that prevent or reduce the risk of credential data exposure or breach; the claims meaningfully recite how the risk analysis system operates at a technical level, rather than as directed to the abstract notion of "risk assessment" or "data access"; the claims are not directed to a fundamental economic practice or a result-oriented abstraction, rather the claims recite a particular technical solution to a problem unique to computer security and architecture (i.e., securely enabling access to protected data); this improvement is reflected in the claims themselves and is integrated into the operation of the claimed risk analysis system, accordingly, at least under Enfish, the claims are patent-eligible; the recited technical features result in improvements to the security of a risk analysis system by way of providing an optimized user interface in which selected data in selected accounts in selected banks can be accessed by the risk analysis model, and as such, the claimed technology cannot be deemed abstract; the recited combination of features cannot be deemed well-understood, routine, or conventional; the claimed subject matter recites a combination of computer-implemented features and elements, including detailed computing functionality related to the exchange of data between multiple computing systems over a communications network; the claims recite detailed functional and structural features, and these features convert a general computer to a special purpose machine and provide a user with the practical means to efficiently interact with a computer-implemented risk management system; the Office Action seems to allege that the claimed subject matter is directed to the organization of human interactions, and the pending claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity at least because the pending claims recite activity that falls outside the enumerated sub-groupings; the recited subject matter in the pending claims, as a whole, forms a unique ensemble of steps for practically improving the claimed risk analysis system by allowing seamless and real-time access to confidential secondary data records not readily available to a risk analysis model; similar to Ancora Technologies, the claims in the present application address a technological problem with computers to improve data security and seamless and robust access to confidential secondary data records otherwise not readily available to a risk analysis system; the claimed subject matter is directed to a combination of technical features that offers improvements over earlier approaches which require several layers of authentication and are not as secure or seamless; the pending claims, similar to Ancora, are directed to improving data security in a computer-implemented risk analysis system--not to a mental process or a method of organizing human activity--and are therefore patent-eligible; the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application because, as applied, it solves a particular problem; the claims recite a non-conventional system architecture that directly improves computer security and distributed data access functionality as integrated into the runtime operation of the computer-implemented risk analysis system itself; citing McRO, provides that Examiners should consider the claim as a whole under Step 2A, and should not overgeneralize the claim or simplify it into its "gist" or core principles, when identifying a concept as a judicial exception; the pending claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea; an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces; the recited combination of features is non-conventional as clear from the lack of an art-based rejection; and the claimed system is a meaningful improvement over the traditional risk analysis systems and the § 101 grounds of rejection should therefore be withdrawn.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20200202425 A1, para 3), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘425 A1, para 3), discloses that the invention relates to improvements in risk assessments providing refinements to credit analysis based on a variety of information, including information voluntarily contributed by an applicant, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 26 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “one or more programmable processors configured to execute server system operations comprising: accessing, by the server system, a first set of information from one or more first data sources via a first set of data resources; performing, by the server system, a first analysis of the first set of information; determining, by the server system, that electronic access to a second set of information is needed due to a threshold requirement not being satisfied by the first analysis of the first set of information; providing, by the server system, first instructions over a communications network to an electronic device, the first instructions executable by one or more processors of the electronic device to result in first operations comprising: causing a display associated with the electronic device to provide a computer-implemented interface configured to request an applicant's consent and authentication information for the server system to access the second set of information from one or more second data sources via a second set of data resources, the second set of information differing from the first set of information, the second set of information not being accessible to the server system via the first set of data resources; and causing the electronic device to transmit, over the communications network, the authentication information to the second data source and an indication of the applicant's consent to the server system; accessing, by the server system, the second set of information, the accessing of the second set of information being conditionally allowed based on the transmitting of the authentication information to the second data source by the electronic device; performing, by the server system, a second analysis of the second set of information, the performing comprising determining that the second set of information supports an increased likelihood for satisfying the threshold requirement; and providing, by the server system, second instructions over the communications network to the electronic device, the second instructions executable by the one or more processors of the electronic device to result in second operations comprising: causing the display associated with the electronic device to provide an indication that the second analysis of the second set of information has resulted in the increased likelihood”, which represent the abstract idea of “refining an applicant risk analysis”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “one or more programmable processors configured to execute server system operations comprising: …”, “electronic access to”, “providing, by the server system, first instructions over a communications network to an electronic device, the first instructions executable by one or more processors of the electronic device to result in first operations comprising: causing a display associated with the electronic device to provide a computer-implemented interface configured to”, “causing the electronic device to transmit, over the communications network”, and “providing, by the server system, second instructions over the communications network to the electronic device, the second instructions executable by the one or more processors of the electronic device to result in second operations comprising: causing the display associated with the electronic device”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “refining an applicant risk analysis”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind or any mathematical concepts, but classified as an abstract idea, “refining an applicant risk analysis”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “refining an applicant risk analysis”. The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for “refining an applicant risk analysis”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “refining an applicant risk analysis”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a refining an applicant risk analysis concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 26 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Relative Terminology, paragraph 18; 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope – Hybrid Scope, paragraph 19; and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 20 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 22, 2025, Applicant has canceled claim 11 to render the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Relative Terminology, paragraph 18; 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope – Hybrid Scope, paragraph 19; and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 20, moot. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Relative Terminology, paragraph 18; 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope – Hybrid Scope, paragraph 19; and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 20, of the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 22, 2025.
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 26-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 26-34 are directed to “a system”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 26 recites “refining an applicant risk analysis”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity) and a form of fundamental economic principles or practices, and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “one or more programmable processors configured to execute server system operations comprising: accessing, by the server system, a first set of information from one or more first data sources via a first set of data resources; performing, by the server system, a first analysis of the first set of information; determining, by the server system, that electronic access to a second set of information is needed due to a threshold requirement not being satisfied by the first analysis of the first set of information; providing, by the server system, first instructions over a communications network to an electronic device, the first instructions executable by one or more processors of the electronic device to result in first operations comprising: causing a display associated with the electronic device to provide a computer-implemented interface configured to request an applicant's consent and authentication information for the server system to access the second set of information from one or more second data sources via a second set of data resources, the second set of information differing from the first set of information, the second set of information not being accessible to the server system via the first set of data resources; and causing the electronic device to transmit, over the communications network, the authentication information to the second data source and an indication of the applicant's consent to the server system; accessing, by the server system, the second set of information, the accessing of the second set of information being conditionally allowed based on the transmitting of the authentication information to the second data source by the electronic device; performing, by the server system, a second analysis of the second set of information, the performing comprising determining that the second set of information supports an increased likelihood for satisfying the threshold requirement; and providing, by the server system, second instructions over the communications network to the electronic device, the second instructions executable by the one or more processors of the electronic device to result in second operations comprising: causing the display associated with the electronic device to provide an indication that the second analysis of the second set of information has resulted in the increased likelihood”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “one or more programmable processors configured to execute server system operations comprising:”, “electronic access to”, “providing, by the server system, first instructions over a communications network to an electronic device, the first instructions executable by one or more processors of the electronic device to result in first operations comprising: causing a display associated with the electronic device to provide a computer-implemented interface configured to”, “causing the electronic device to transmit, over the communications network”, and “providing, by the server system, second instructions over the communications network to the electronic device, the second instructions executable by the one or more processors of the electronic device to result in second operations comprising: causing the display associated with the electronic device”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “refining an applicant risk analysis”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “refining an applicant risk analysis” using computer technology (e.g., “a server system” and “an electronic device”). Therefore, the use of this additional element does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 26 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 27-34 further describe the abstract idea of “refining an applicant risk analysis”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 26.
Dependent claims 27-30 and 32-34 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “refining an applicant risk analysis”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Dependent claim 31 recites a new additional element of “a risk analysis model”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Hence, claims 26-34 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brown et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20040039690 A1) – Method And System For Offering A Loan Through A Computing System
Brown recites a system, a computing device receiving first information about a customer. To at least first and second loan sources, the computing device outputs second information enabling the first and second loan sources to determine whether to offer a loan to the customer for financing an item. The second information includes at least a portion of the first information. From the first and second loan sources, the computing device receives submissions of respective first and second offers for providing the loan to the customer for financing the item. The first and second offers are submitted by the first and second loan sources in response to the second information and in a manner that commits to provide the loan if accepted by the customer. The computing device identifies at least one of the first and second offers as being most favorable. To the customer, the computing device outputs third information about the identified offer. The third information includes an identity of at least one of the loan sources that submitted the identified offer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/STEVEN CHISM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights