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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of the claims
1, 4-6, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18 and 20-21 are amended.
Claims 1-10, 12-22 are examined herein.
The previously presented 35 USC 112 2nd have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-10, 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the claims are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Claims 1, 12 and 20 recites the abstract idea of determining a value of a metric characterizing a consistency between a classification code and a keyword in order to determine compliance. This idea is described by the following claim steps:
receiving request data the request data comprising application data characterizing a product and compliance data characterizing an activity, and the compliance data comprising a classification code and textual content;
generating one or more keywords associated with the activity based on a portion of the textual content;
based on the classification code and the at least one of the keywords, determine a value of a metric characterizing a consistency between the classification code and the at least one of the keywords;
and when the metric value is inconsistent with at least one compliance criterion, obtain additional data associated with the activity and determine, a compliance of the activity with a restriction associated with the product based on the additional data, and
based on the determined compliance, performing operations, that provision the product in accordance with at least a portion of the application data.
This idea falls within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The concepts performed in the human mind, perhaps with the aid of pen and paper, are directed to a approving an application and issuing a financial product to a prospective customer (See [003].). Wherein the data is observed or received and evaluated in order to generate results of the evaluation. This is done by (i) analyzing application data characterizing a product and compliance data characterizing an activity further comprising a classification and textual code (ii) determining a value of a metric characterizing a consistency between the classification code and at least one keyword and (iii) determining a compliance of the activity with a restriction associated with the product based on additional data.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Mental Processes abstract idea groupings of the MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Mental Processes abstract idea groupings described in the MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Claim 12 and 20 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
a memory storing instructions;
a memory storing instructions;
a communications interface;
at least one processor coupled to the memory and the communications interface;
a first trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process;
a second trained machine- learning or artificial-intelligence process comprising a trained artificial neural network including an input layer having a plurality of input nodes that ingest corresponding ones of the elements of the unput dataset, an output layer having an output node and one or more intermediate computational layers disposed between the input and output layer;
at least one processor;
a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions;
a device.
However, using a computer environment such as processor, using machine learning or artificial-intelligence and the other recited computer elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Performing an approval process for an application and issuing financial products to prospective customer can reasonably be performed by pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring applying a machine- learning or artificial-intelligence process. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of approving an application and issuing financial products to relates to a process that is executed in a computer environment through the recited computing elements merely limits the claims to the computer field.
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and alternatively serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
Regarding “machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process” the examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim does not recite how the system improves computer functioning. There is no specific machine learning or artificial intelligence architecture or algorithm and no improvement to ML performance, memory management, or processing speed recited in the claim.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method, computer system, and computer program product that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 12 and 20 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a commercial or legal interaction or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 13-19 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
Dependent claims 2, 4 and 13, 15 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitations the textual content comprises one or more elements of natural language that characterize the activity; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: apply the first trained machine-learning or artificial intelligence process to the elements of natural language; and based on the application of the first trained machine- learning or artificial intelligence process to the elements of natural language, generate the one or more keywords associated with the activity and obtain composition data associated with the second trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process, the composition data identifying input feature values of the input dataset and specifying an order of the input feature values with the input dataset, and the input feature values comprising the classification code and at least one of the keywords; and based on the composition data, package each of the input feature values into the input dataset at a corresponding position with the specified order. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 3 and 14 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use by introducing the limitation wherein the elements of natural language comprise a plurality of discrete linguistic elements, and the discrete linguistic elements include at least one of the keywords. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 5 and 16 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation store the request data within a corresponding portion of the memory, the request data further comprising a request identifier; determine that the metric value is inconsistent with the at least one compliance criterion; and based on the determination that the metric value is inconsistent with the at least one compliance criterion, generate a data flag indicative of the inconsistency between the output data and the at least one compliance criterion, and store the data flag within the corresponding portion of the memory. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environments not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation based on the determination that the metric value is inconsistent with the at least one compliance criterion, perform operations that request and receive, via the communications interface, one or more elements of the additional data from a computing system; and store the one or more elements of the additional data within the corresponding portion of the memory. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing and storing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation transmit, via the communications interface, an audit request that includes the request identifier and the data flag to an additional device, the additional device being configured to access the additional data based on at least the request identifier and to present a portion of the additional data within a digital interface; receive an audit response from the additional device via the communications interface; and determine the compliance of the activity with the restriction based on at least the audit response. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 8 and 17 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation transmit, via the communications interface, a notification indicative of the provisioned product to the device, the device being configured to present at least a portion of the notification within a digital interface. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing and transmitting information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 9 and 18 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation wherein: the at least one compliance criterion comprises a threshold value; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine that the metric value exceeds the threshold value; and determine that the metric value is inconsistent with the at least one compliance criterion based on the determination that the metric value exceeds the threshold value. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing simple mathematical concepts and transmitting information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 10 and 19 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation determine that the metric value is consistent with the at least one compliance criterion; and based on the determination that the metric value is consistent with the at least one compliance criterion, determine that the activity complies with the restriction. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing and transmitting information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 21 further limits the abstract idea by linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation the artificial neural network further comprises one or more intermediate computational layers disposed between the input and output layers; the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtain process data associated with the artificial neural network, the process data comprising one or more parameters of the artificial neural network: establish a plurality of input nodes of the artificial neural network in accordance with the one or more parameters; provision a corresponding element of the input dataset to each of the established input nodes; and provision an output of the established input nodes to a corresponding one of the one or more intermediate computational layers. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 22 further limits the abstract idea by linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation wherein the textual content comprises a plurality of discrete linguistic elements; the input dataset further comprises the classification code and a plurality of the keywords, the keywords comprising at least one of the discrete linguistic elements; and the at one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine a plurality of metric values based on the application of the second trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process to the input dataset, each of the metric values characterizing a consistency between the classification code and a corresponding one of the plurality of the keywords. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing and transmitting information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide high level of generality computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information see MPEP 2106.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered.
Based on Applicant’s amendments, the previously presented 35 USC 112 1st have been withdrawn.
In regards to the previously presented 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues:
“a. The Office's analysis fails to establish that the Applicant's claims "recite" a patent-ineligible abstract idea under Prong One of Revised Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test” Examiner disagrees. Please refer to the detailed analysis as presented above wherein the examiner evaluated wherein the claim recites a judicial exception. The Examiner identified the abstract idea under “Mental Processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). That is because claims 1, 12 and 20 recites the abstract idea of determining a value of a metric characterizing a consistency between a classification code and a keyword in order to determine compliance. The Examiner further identified the claimed limitations that are describing the abstract idea.
“b. The Office fails to establish that Applicant's independent claims are "directed to" an abstract idea under Prong One of Revised Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test” However it appears that the body of the argument is directed to arguments directed to the analysis under Prong Two Step 2A. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a first matter the consideration of the additional elements is part of Prong Two. In Prong Two analysis above, the Examiner pointed out the additional elements being considered as “a memory storing instructions; a memory storing instructions; a communications interface; at least one processor coupled to the memory and the communications interface; a first trained machine-learning or artificial-intelligence process; a second trained machine- learning or artificial-intelligence process comprising a trained artificial neural network including an input layer having a plurality of input nodes that ingest corresponding ones of the elements of the unput dataset, an output layer having an output node and one or more intermediate computational layers disposed between the input and output layer; at least one processor; a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions; a device” However, using a computer environment such as processor, using machine learning or artificial-intelligence and the other recited computer elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Performing an approval process for an application and issuing financial products to prospective customer can reasonably be performed by pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring applying a machine- learning or artificial-intelligence process. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of approving an application and issuing financial products to relates to a process that is executed in a computer environment through the recited computing elements merely limits the claims to the computer field. The claims at hand, are directed to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). It is noted that the claims do not provide disclosure of a specific improvement to computer technology or computer functionality and directed to mere instructions to apply the exception using conventional computer components.
Additionally, it appears that Applicant is arguing a business solution by arguing that the claims provide an improvement in “in the operation of existing, computer-implemented compliance workflow processes that rely on numerical classification codes in the assessment and assignment of risk to relationships with prospective customers of an organization.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Accounting for gradations in the risk across prospective customer associated with a common numerical classification code is a business solution rather than an improvement in technology, which does not require any technology to improve such a process. Identification of the prospective customers is a process that does not require any technology and improving such identification such that it properly identifies the prospective customers would result in less resources since the process is improved. However, it does not represent an improvement on the technology itself, but rather a better or shorter process that results in less resources being used, wherein the process improved is a business solution not a technological improvement.
“C. Applicant's independent claims amount to "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the detailed rejection above, where the Examiner properly made all the required analysis independently and analyzing the claims as a whole in order to determine that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and to conclude that the claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see the 35 USC 101 rejection above.
“In this case, as conceded by the Office, Applicant’s claims recite subject matter that distinguishes the references of record. Thus, Applicant’s claims involve an “inventive concept” under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims recite features that exceed “well-understood, routine, conventional activities” already known in the industry. /d., at 224-225. Accordingly, the rejection of Applicant’s independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is improper and should be withdrawn.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that the claims are directed to a specific subset of the abstract idea identified—in this case, generating a predicted likelihood that the activity complies with a restriction associated with a product in order to approve an application and issuing a financial product to a prospective customer—does not render the idea any less abstract.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CARTELLA, US 20200285895, METHOD, APPARATUS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR SELECTING A SUBSET OF TRAINING TRANSACTIONS FROM A PLURALITY OF TRAINING TRANSACTIONS. [0032] Machine-learning models are trained using training input data. The examples specified above use a training method called “supervised learning”. In supervised learning, the machine-learning model is trained using a plurality of training samples, wherein each sample may comprise a plurality of input data values and a plurality of desired output values, i.e. each training sample includes a desired output value. By specifying training samples with desired output values, the machine-learning model “learns” which output value to provide based on an input sample that is similar to the samples provided during the training. In embodiments, the training transactions may comprise both the actual content of the training transactions to be used as input values, and the indication whether a training transaction is fraudulent or genuine to be used as desired output value. Supervised learning may be based on a supervised learning algorithm, e.g. a classification algorithm, a regression algorithm or a similarity learning algorithm. Classification algorithms may be used when the outputs are restricted to a limited set of values, i.e. the input is classified to one of the limited set of values. Regression algorithms may be used when the outputs may have any numerical value (within a range). Similarity learning algorithms are similar to both classification and regression algorithms, but are based on learning from examples using a similarity function that measures how similar or related two objects are. For example, in embodiments, a classification algorithm may be used to classify the training transaction to the output values of “fraudulent” or “genuine”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629