Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR §1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR §1.17(e), was filed on October 14, 2025 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forth in 37 CFR §1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated June 16, 2025 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR §1.114 and the submission filed on October 14, 2025 has been entered. Claims 4 and 14 are newly cancelled by applicant. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-20 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “causing, by the server, a second server to block a network operation by transmitting the stop signal to the second server along with the data structure.” It is unclear whether the network operation referred to in this limitation refers to the network operation included in the initial request (e.g., “upon receiving an input from a computing device submitting a request for a network operation and indicating an employment triggering status”), or a separate network operation independent from the request. For the purpose of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as referring to the network operation included in the initial request. For example, this limitation has been interpreted as stating, “causing, by the server, a second server to block the network operation by transmitting the stop signal to the second server along with the data structure.” However, appropriate clarification of this limitation is required. Additionally, the examiner notes that the term “network operation” is not explicitly defined in the specification. Rather, the specification appears to utilize the term “transaction” in place of the term “network operation” where the claimed operations are described. For example, Paragraph 87 of the specification states, “upon receiving an input from a computing device submitting a request for a transaction and indicating an employment triggering status…” Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the term “network operation” has been interpreted as being equivalent to a “transaction” as described in the specification. For example, Paragraph 94 of the specification states that the user may submit a request for a transaction, “such as a payment to offset the lost income.”
Since claim 11 has the substantially same issue as claim 1, claim 11 is rejected for the grounds and rationale used to reject claim 1. Since claims 3, 5-10, 13, and 15-20 are include the respective limitations of claim 1 or 11, these claims are rejected for the grounds and rationale used to reject claims 1 and 11. Appropriate correction or clarification of these claims is required. No new matter may be added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and does not include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 and October 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Step 1
7. Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1, 3, and 5-10) and a machine (claims 11, 13, and 15-20); where the machine is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
8. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
A method for blocking network operations, the method comprising:
upon receiving an input from [[a computing device]] submitting a request for a network operation and indicating an employment triggering status:
appending, [[by the server]], the message and an indication of the online browser activity to the request;
generating, [[by the server]], a stop signal for the network operation associated with the secure loan dataset when the message conflicts with the input; and
causing, [[by the server, a second server]] to block a network operation by transmitting the stop signal to [[the second server]] along with the data structure,
wherein [[the second server]] blocks the network operation based on whether the data structure matches a previously stored data structure corresponding to the secure loan dataset.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial interactions (e.g., here, facilitating/managing a transaction).
Step 2A, Prong 2
9. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which claim 1 is directed does not include limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the limitations of claim 1 also recite generic computer components (e.g., a computing device, a server, a second server, an electronic data structure, a browser cookie, and a machine learning model). In particular, the recited features of the abstract idea are merely being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation, “generating, by a server, an electronic data structure comprising an alphanumerical string unique to a secure loan dataset.” This limitation simply states that the method comprises generating a generic data structure corresponding to a secure loan dataset. However, the claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the data structure is generated and/or structured. Therefore, this limitation amounts to no more than merely applying a generic computer-based data structure to facilitate the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation, “retrieving, by the server from the computing device submitting the request, at least one browser cookie indicating online browser activity associated with the computing device.” This limitation simply states that the method comprises utilizing browser cookies to facilitate the collection of online browser activity associated with the user. However, the claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the browser cookies are implemented to facilitate the collection of browser activity. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely applying generic browser cookie technology to facilitate the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitations, “generating, by the server, a feature vector corresponding to the message and online browser activity; and executing, by the server using the feature vector, a machine learning model to predict whether the message conflicts with the input.” These limitations simply state that the method comprises utilizing a machine learning model to predict whether the message conflicts with the input based on a feature vector. However, the claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding how the machine learning model functions to produce the prediction and/or how the model is generated. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely applying generic machine learning technology to facilitate the abstract idea on a computer.
Therefore, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In other words, the additional elements are simply used as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 1 also recites the following limitations:
web-crawling, by the server, a plurality of online resources to identify a message containing at least one keyword related to the employment triggering status configured to cause the server to execute a second network operation associated with a secure loan dataset of the computing device.
These limitations merely state that the system gathers data from a plurality of online resources. The claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding how the data is gathered from the plurality of online resources. Therefore, these limitations amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g): See MPEP 2106.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2024)).
Thus, claim 1 does not include any limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As a result, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
10. Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements of claim 1 are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the recited additional elements (e.g., a computing device, a server, a second server, an electronic data structure, a browser cookie, and a machine learning model), do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality such that they are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (See also e.g., applicant’s Specification at least Paragraphs 57-63).
Additionally, the following limitations identified above as insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) have been revaluated in Step 2B:
web-crawling, by the server, a plurality of online resources to identify a message containing at least one keyword related to the employment triggering status configured to cause the server to execute a second network operation associated with a secure loan dataset of the computing device.
As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of this requirement set forth by Berkheimer, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of mere data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Thus, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additional Independent Claims
11. Independent claim 11 is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claim 11 recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claim 1. However, the primary difference between claims 11 and 1 is that claim 11 is drafted as a system rather than as a method. Similarly, as described above regarding claim 1, claim 11 recites generic computer components (e.g., a non-transitory machine-readable memory configured to store a set of instructions, a processor, a computing device, a second server, an electronic data structure, a browser cookie, and a machine learning model) that are simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, since the same analysis should be used for claims 1 and 11, claim 11 is not patent eligible (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Dependent Claims
12. Dependent claims 3-10 and 13-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claims 3 and 13 simply provides further definition to the process of “determining that the message conflicts with the input” recited in claim 1. Simply stating that this process includes identifying keywords within a defined list of keywords does not provide any indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the type of data used to determine that the message conflicts with the input.
Claims 5 and 15 simply provide further definition to the “message” recited in claim 1. Simply stating that the message indicates that a user associated with the secure loan dataset has a new employment does not provide any indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the type of information conveyed by the message.
Claims 6 and 16 simply provide further definition to the “plurality of online resources” recited in claim 1. Simply stating that the plurality of online resources comprise a social media website does not provide any indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the type of resource analyzed by the system.
Claims 7 and 17 simply provide further definition to the “message” recited in claim 1. Simply stating that the message is a social media post does not provide any indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the medium in which the message is conveyed.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 simply recite process steps for displaying various information to the user via the computing device. These limitations do not provide any indication of a technical improvement regarding how this information is displayed. Rather, the claims simply state that the information is displayed. Therefore, these limitations amount to no more than merely outputting/displaying data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In view of the requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of merely outputting/displaying data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101
14. Applicant’s arguments (Amendment, pages 6-10) concerning the prior rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive for the following reasons. Under the prior and current 101 analysis under 2019 PEG, the amended claims recite and are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, without something significantly more, for the reasons given above after consideration of the claimed features and elements. The abstract idea has been restated herein in line with the 2019 PEG guidance and the amended claims. Applicant is directed to the above full Alice/Mayo analysis in the 101 rejection.
Additionally, on pages 6 and 7 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “The claims are patent eligible because they are analogous to claim 3 of Example 47.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner notes that claim 3 of Example, 47 was found to be eligible because, “the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field.” While the examiner recognizes that the methods recited in the claims may provide benefits regarding the detection of fraudulent transactions, the claims do not achieve these benefits through an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, as discussed in the 101 rejection above, the claims simply apply generic computer-related technology to implement the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the applicant argues that the implementation of machine learning technology to predict conflict between the message and the user’s input integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the model is trained, or how the model functions to provide the desired output. The applicant notes that the machine learning model utilizes a feature vector to produce the desired output. However, the claims similarly do not provide any technical detail regarding how the feature vector is generated, or how it is utilized by the machine learning model. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely providing a generic input to a generic machine learning model to produce an output. Thus, such limitations amount to no more than merely applying generic computer-related technology to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, on page 8 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “For instance, claim 1 recites concepts that improve computer technology by providing a concrete, automated solution to technical problems inherent in conventional dataset management systems.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the examiner notes that it may be beneficial to apply generic computer-related components to automate the monitoring of online resources for employment-related messages, the claims do not recite an improvement to any technology or technological field that produces these benefits. Rather, the claims simply recite the use of generic computer-related components to automate the abstract idea. The examiner points to MPEP2106.05(a)(I) which states that “Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase” do not indicate an improvement in computer functionality. As noted above, the claims, as currently drafted, amount to no more than merely applying generic computer-related components to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, on page 9 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Applying that rule here, the claims do not recite human-facing rules for managing employment or loan practices but instead describe a specific sequence of technical operations performed by two distinct servers and computing devices to block certain network operations.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner notes that simply reciting process steps for transmitting communications between servers does not prevent the claims from reciting an abstract idea. As discussed in the 101 rejection above, the claims recite limitations for receiving and processing a request for a network operation (e.g., a transaction, such as such as a payment to offset lost income). While the claims recite limitations that fall outside of the abstract idea, the claims clearly recite limitations that fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity.
As discussed in the 112(b) rejection above, the claims and specification do not appear to define the term “network operation.” Therefore, this term has been interpreted as being equivalent to the term “transaction,” which is used in the specification when describing the claimed processes. This is relevant when analyzing the claims under 101. For example, claim 1 recites the limitation, “generating, by the server, a stop signal for the network operation associated with the secure loan dataset when the message conflicts with the input.” This limitation is described in Paragraph 101 of the specification which states, “the analytics server may generate a stop signal to for the transaction associated with the secure loan dataset when the message conflicts with the input. The analytics server may generate an instruction to stop one or more transactions associated with the participant's secure loan dataset.” This portion of the specification appears to indicate that the stop signal is simply an instruction to stop a scheduled transaction from being completed. Such limitations fall under the category of organizing human activity, namely fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial interactions (e.g., facilitating/managing a financial transaction). The mere fact that the claims state that this process is performed by a series of servers does not prevent the claims from reciting an abstract idea.
Additionally, on page 9 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “The actions recited in the claims are computational and technical in nature, occurring entirely within computer systems, and cannot be practically performed in the human mind.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner has not stated that the claims recite a mental process. Therefore, whether the claim limitations are able to be performed in the human mind is not a consideration relevant to the examiner’s analysis.
Additionally, on pages 9 and 10 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Furthermore, the assertion that "the recited features of the abstract idea are merely being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool ("apply it") to implement the abstract idea" runs contrary to the latest Patent Office guidance issued on August 4, 2025.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the claims do not provide any indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. While the claims recite the use of technology to perform the abstract idea, the claims provide no indication of a technical improvement to the underlying technology.
Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102/103
15. All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in response to the applicant’s claim amendments. A combination of references could not be identified in the prior art to reasonably teach the specific combination of limitations recited in the newly amended independent claims.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Willard (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20120109806): Describes a method and system for identifying improper benefit payments to an ineligible beneficiary. Record data may be accessed from a financial institution and may be analyzed to identify patterns within the banking transactions.
Mossoba (U.S. Patent No. 10796380): Describes an income analysis platform that may receive information associated with employment-related activity of a user, wherein the employment-related activity is associated with an employment status of the user. The income analysis platform may analyze, using an employment analysis model, the information to determine the employment status of the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D NEWLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/WILLIAM D NEWLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696