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
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 02/05/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant asserted that claim 1 “is amended to recite inter alia ‘determining, for each signal of the one or more signals, whether the signal represents active data or passive data from the one or more signals . . .’” & “claim 6 ‘is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are adding the words “apply it”’. . .”. The applicant argued that the claims as amended are directed to a technical improvement after cited Ex parte Desjardins. The applicant asserted that “the passive data can be removed from consideration for constructing an entity profile”. But this is an improvement to a judicial exception rather than an improvement to technology. For instance, the calculation on a computing device is simplified does not lead to an improvement to a computing device. Hence, the removing of passive data is not an improvement to the technology of which the judicial exception is non-meaningfully applied on. However, the determination of the signal does not render the judicial exception a practical application. The limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application: 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Similarly under step 2B prong Two, The limitations are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the arguments have been considered and they are persuasive. In page 16, the Applicant asserted that “[the] remaining cited references, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to remedy the deficiencies of Kortina. For example, the remaining cited references, whether considered alone or in combination, are silent at least to ‘determining, for each signal of the one or more signals, whether the signal represents active data or passive data . . .’ Thus, the combination of cited references does not disclose or make obvious each and every feature of amended claim 1.”
For instance, the primary reference Yu teaches: Methods and systems are provided for determining an action or recommendation in response to a request for information on an individual. A user may provide preferences and authentication data for responding to these requests. Historical information on an individual's typical response to such requests can also be used to determine the appropriate response. A community of other individuals that share a characteristic with the individual may be assessed for preferences and authentication. Information related to the requester requesting the data may also be used. An alert may then be generated and provided to the individual based on retrieved contact information associated with the individual.
Kortina teaches: A configuration for more efficient electronic financial transactions is disclosed. Users input personal and financial information into a system that validates the information to generate trusted financial profiles. Each user can establish trusted financial links with other users. The trusted financial link provides a mechanism for the user to allow other users to withdraw money from the link provider account. The data from these relationships and the financial data flowing through the system enable a measure of trustworthiness of users and the trustworthiness of all interactions in the system. The combination of trusted financial profiles, trusted financial links, and financial transactions between users create a measurable financial trust graph which is a true representation of the trusting economic relationships among the users. The financial trust graph enables a more accurate assessment of the creditworthiness and financial risk of transactions by users with little or no credit or transaction history.
Chinnalagu teaches: Systems and methods for providing characteristic analytics are provided. A data construct including a text object is received. A first subset of classification models in a plurality of classification models is applied to the data construct. The subset of classification models parse the text object into a plurality of text strings. Each respective classification model in the plurality of classification models parses a portion of the text object in accordance with a plurality of heuristic instructions associated with the respective classification model. The text object is evaluated using a reference database that includes a predetermined plurality of text strings. A characteristic of the data construct in the form of a result of the evaluating is provided. The evaluation step further comprises a second disjoint subset of classification models used for the evaluation of the parsed text object.
Furthermore, Adam teaches: disclosure relates generally to vegetation management and control, in particular, to vegetation data capture, maintenance workflow generation, prioritization, passive and continuous monitoring of vegetation, and predictive analysis for vegetation that may be within or adjacent to clearance zones for railway, transportation, utility, pipeline, range & pasture, and industrial sites.
None of the cited references, either individually or in combination, teaches the claimed invention. It would not be obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these features to teach the claimed invention. Hence, the combination is not obvious. Therefore, the 103 rejection is withdrawn.
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 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1-20 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. 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, recites, in part, A system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving entity data relating to a target entity, the entity data comprising real- time data in a first format and external data in a second format, the entity data receivable as a stream in real-time; extracting a plurality of features from the entity data; generating one or more signals based on the plurality of features, each signal of the one or more signals comprising a subset of the plurality of features, and each signal of the one or more signals corresponding to an amount of risk associated with the target entity; determining, for each signal of the one or more signals, whether the signal represents active data or passive data, wherein the active data has a corresponding contribution to the amount of risk, and wherein the passive data does not have a corresponding contribution to the amount of risk; removing a particular signal representing the passive data from the one or more signals; converting, subsequent to removing the particular signal from the one or more signals and using an entity profile model, (i) a first set of signals of the one or more signals from the first format to a standard format and (ii) a second set of signals of the one or more signals from the second format to the standard format, wherein the first set of signals comprises signals having the real-time data, and wherein the second set of signals comprises signals having the external data; constructing, using the entity profile model and based on the converted first set of signals and the converted second set of signals, an entity profile by concatenating the converted first set of signals and the converted second set of signals into the entity profile that has the standard format that is different from the first format and the second format; updating, after one or more predetermined time periods elapsing and using subsequently received entity data, the entity profile by executing the entity profile model on the subsequently received entity data to generate an updated plurality of scores; and providing a responsive message based on one or more scores of the updated plurality of scores of the updated entity profile usable to control access to an interactive computing environment.. The limitations are directed to “business relations” (commercial interactions - see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Hence, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as one or more processors, a non-transitory readable medium, a processing device, a first machine learning model, a second machine learning model, an entity profile to perform receiving, extracting and generating. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (converting, estimating, and adjusting ). In addition, the disclosure does not discuss in details how the step is technologically performed. The steps are performed, e.g. by a processor or ML without disclosing any algorithm or training process. Hence, there was no technological cited in the limitations. Lastly, there was no ordered combination of additional element results in a improvement like that of BASCOM. Therefore, it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the 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. Claims 1, 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving and identifying data are merely additional elements performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device used to extract data for consumer report is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) additional elements of receiving a query for determining an entity risk for the target entity; determining, using the entity profile, the entity risk for the target entity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the disclosure does not discuss in details how the step is technologically performed. The steps are performed, e.g. by a processor or ML without disclosing any algorithm or training process. Hence, there was no technological cited in the limitations. Lastly, there was no ordered combination of additional element results in a improvement like that of BASCOM. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional elements (such as a system, a processing device) do not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 3, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of defining data: entity data comprises (i) real-time data about the target entity streamed from external data sources, (ii) real-time data about the target entity produced from internal data sources, (iii) historical interaction data about the target entity, or a combination thereof, and wherein extracting the plurality of features includes extracting each feature of the plurality of features based on (i) the real-time data about the target entity streamed from external data sources. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements (such as a system, a processing device, non-transitory computer readable medium) do not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) additional elements of determining that the signal is the positive signal includes determining that the signal reduces a likelihood that the target entity is associated with fraud. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the disclosure does not discuss in details how the step is technologically performed. The steps are performed, e.g. by a processor or ML without disclosing any algorithm or training process. Hence, there was no technological cited in the limitations. Lastly, there was no ordered combination of additional element results in a improvement like that of BASCOM. The additional elements (such as a system, a processing device, non-transitory computer readable medium) do not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of determining whether the simulated signal (i) increases a likelihood that the target entity is associated with fraud. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the disclosure does not discuss in details how the step is technologically performed. The steps are performed, e.g. by a processor or ML without disclosing any algorithm or training process. Hence, there was no technological cited in the limitations. Lastly, there was no ordered combination of additional element results in a improvement like that of BASCOM. The additional elements (such as a system, a processing device, non-transitory computer readable medium) do not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 6, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract idea of determining, for each signal of the one or more signals, whether the signal represents active data included in the entity data or passive data included in the entity data; tagging, in response to determining that a particular signal of the one or more signals represents the passive data, the particular signal of the one or more signals. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the disclosure does not discuss in details how the step is technologically performed. The steps are performed, e.g. by a processor or ML without disclosing any algorithm or training process. Hence, there was no technological cited in the limitations. Lastly, there was no ordered combination of additional element results in a improvement like that of BASCOM. The additional elements (such as a system, a processing device, non-transitory computer readable medium) do not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea defining a profile: the entity profile associates a plurality of dimensions of the target entity with a plurality of different risk indicators, and wherein a subset of the plurality of different risk indicators is usable to determine an identity of the target entity with respect to an interaction in which the target entity is involved. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the disclosure does not discuss in details how the step is technologically performed. The steps are performed, e.g. by a processor or ML without disclosing any algorithm or training process. Hence, there was no technological cited in the limitations. Lastly, there was no ordered combination of additional element results in a improvement like that of BASCOM. The additional elements (such as a system, a processing device, non-transitory computer readable medium) do not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 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, Michael W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights