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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 21, 2025 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1, 12 and 20. Claims 1-20 are now pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
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.
Claim 1-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1: Claim 1 recites, in part, “executing a third machine learning model having an input thereto of the modified data file to verify an income of a user associated with the plurality of transaction
records included in the modified data file.” Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s disclosure and was unable to find support for this limitation. Specifically, Examiner was unable to fund support for third machine learning model performing an income verification of a user. For example, Examiner noted that in the original disclosure (Claims - 06/08/2022) claim 9 disclose “wherein the method further comprises executing a third machine learning model on the modified data file stored in memory to perform an income verification with respect to the plurality of transaction records included in the modified data file.” Furthermore, Specification, p. 22 disclose “In some embodiments, the method may further include executing a third machine learning model on the modified data file stored in memory to perform an income verification with respect to the plurality of transactions records included in the modified data file.” Therefore, the disclosure have support for a third machine learning model executing an income verification with respect to the plurality of transaction records. However, there is no support for a third machine learning model executing an income verification of a user.
Claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) based on their dependency to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 recites the same limitation (e.g., executing a third machine learning model having an input thereto of the modified data file to verify an income of a user associated with the plurality of transaction records included in the modified data file” as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for the same reasons and rational explained above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 13-19 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) based on their dependency to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 recites the same limitation (e.g., executing a third machine learning model having an input thereto of the modified data file to verify an income of a user associated with the plurality of transaction records included in the modified data file” as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for the same reasons and rational explained above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9: Claim 9 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises executing a third machine learning model on the modified data file stored in memory to perform an income verification with respect to the plurality of transaction records included in the modified data file.” Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s disclosure and was unable to find support for this limitation in view of amended claim 1. For example, in Applicants disclosure “a third machine learning model” is executed once. See Applicant’s Specification p. 22 “In some embodiments, the method may further include executing a third machine learning model on the modified data file stored in memory to perform an income verification with respect to the plurality of transactions records included in the modified data file.” Since in claim 1, a third machine learning is already executed, there is no support in Specification for a third machine learning model being further executed. Examiner notes that MPEP 2163.03 V states "The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).”
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks p. 11-19) with respect to the claims rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner contends that the claims still could be considered to be reciting one or more abstract ideas (e.g., determining a common transaction, confidence score and income verification), however, as indicated in applicant’s remarks (Amendment, pp. 17-18), the additional elements recited in amended claim 1 integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. In view of applicant’s arguments and the current claim amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 103
Applicant argues that the two(2) Machine Learning Program (MLPs) disclosed in Gorman (e.g., FIG. 4) are not the same as or even suggestive of the claimed first machine learning model and the second machine learning model recited in amended claim 1. Examiner agrees. Gorman does disclose the use of two machine learning model to reconciliate transaction data. However, in Gorman the two machine learning models receive data from two different sources to map transaction data. In contract to the claimed invention where each of the two machine learning models have two different functions. Accordingly, the claims rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
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 KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698