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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed April 28, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-20 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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 suspending 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 suspend the network operation by transmitting the stop signal to [[the second server]] along with the data structure,
wherein [[the second server]] suspends the network operation based on whether the data structure matches a previously stored data structure corresponding to the secure loan dataset;
receiving, [[by the server from the computing device]], the revised input; and
maintaining or withdrawing the stop signal based on the revised input.
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 associated with a loan).
Step 2A, Prong 2
7. 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)).
Claim 1 also recites the following limitation:
in response to generating the stop signal, dynamically displaying, by the server on the computing device, a prompt comprising the message and an input element configured to receive a revised input indicating a revised employment triggering status.
This limitation merely states that the method includes displaying a prompt for the user to provide a revised input regarding the employment triggering status. However, the claim does not provide significant technical detail regarding how the prompt is displayed. Simply stating that the prompt is displayed “dynamically” does not provide any indication of a technical improvement regarding how the prompt is displayed. The claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the prompt is displayed “dynamically.” Therefore, this limitation amounts 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)).
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
8. 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)).
Additionally, the following limitation identified above as insignificant extra-solution activity (merely outputting/displaying data) has been revaluated in Step 2B:
in response to generating the stop signal, dynamically displaying, by the server on the computing device, a prompt comprising the message and an input element configured to receive a revised input indicating a revised employment triggering status.
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, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additional Independent Claims
9. 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
10. Dependent claims 3, 5-10, 13, and 15-20 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
11. Applicant’s arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
12. All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in response to the applicant’s claim amendments.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101
13. Applicant’s arguments (Amendment, pages 7-12) 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 page 7 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “The claims are patent eligible because they are analogous to the concepts recited in claim 3 of Example 47.” Similarly, on page 8 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Thus, the claimed model output is not merely reported or displayed. Instead, the output is used to automatically control execution of a downstream network operation at a second server.” 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, claim 1 does not provide significant technical detail regarding the “stop signal” and how it is implemented. Rather, claim 1 simply states that the is generated and transmitted to the to a second server to suspend the network operation. The claim does not provide any technical detail regarding how the stop signal is utilized to suspend the network operation. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely transmitting a message to a second server to suspend the network operation (i.e., a transaction associated with the loan). Such limitations do not provide any indication of a technical improvement regarding how network operations are managed, as is recited in claim 3 of Example 47.
Additionally, on page 8 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Amended claim 1 further recites an additional computer-implemented verification workflow that reinforces the practical application. In response to generating the stop signal, the server dynamically displays, on the computing device, a prompt comprising the detected message and an input element configured to receive revised employment-status information. The server then receives the revised input and maintains or withdraws the stop signal based on that revised input. Accordingly, the claim recites not merely identifying potentially inconsistent information, but instead a concrete, machine-executed control loop in which a first server suspends a pending network operation, dynamically reconfigures the interface presented to the requesting device, obtains updated machine-received input, and then controls whether the suspension remains in place.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 101 rejection above, the claim does not provide significant technical detail regarding how the prompt is displayed. Therefore, simply stating that the method includes displaying a prompt to collect information from the user amounts to no more than merely outputting/displaying data. Similarly, the claim does not provide any technical detail regarding how the user interacts with the prompt to provide the revised employment triggering status, and/or how the input is used to maintain or withdraw the stop signal. Therefore, such limitations simply further refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., receiving input from the user, and allowing or suspending the transaction based on the input) that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above regarding claim 1.
Additionally, on pages 9 and 10 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “The recited operations improve system functionality and operational integrity in a concrete way. Rather than requiring a human reviewer to manually compare user-submitted information against external information sources and then manually instruct another system whether to proceed, the claims recite a distributed computer workflow in which detection, conflict analysis, suspension of the pending network operation, interface reconfiguration, and updated control of the stop signal are all performed through coordinated server operations.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding how these processes are performed. 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. Therefore, simply reciting the use of generic computer-related components to automate processes traditionally performed by humans does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Additionally, on page 12 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “The fact that the claimed workflow may be used in connection with a secure loan dataset or an employment-triggering status does not convert the claims into one directed to organizing human activity. Those terms provide the technological context in which the recited computer operations are performed, but the claims are focused on how the computer system detects conflicting machine-collected signals, suspends execution of a network operation at a second server, dynamically modifies the requesting device interface, and then updates the stop condition based on newly received device input. The claimed advance lies in this coordinated computer functionality, not in a human rule governing employment or financial practices.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding how the network operations are suspended. Therefore, simply stating that the “network operation” is suspended amounts to no more than merely suspending a transaction associated with the loan, which falls under the category of organizing human activity. Simply stating that the transaction that is suspended is a “network operation” does not prevent the claim from reciting a certain method of organizing human activity. While the specification does not explicitly define the term “network operation,” It is clear throughout the specification that the “network operation” corresponds to a financial transaction associated with the loan (e.g., See Paragraphs 97 and 98 of the applicant’s Specification: “The participant may also use the platform to request a transaction, such as a payment to offset the lost income… The instruction informs the recipient server that the participant's response has been flagged as potentially fraudulent and may delay payment for a pre-determined time”). Therefore, the claims clearly recite limitations corresponding to certain methods of organizing human activity, as described above regarding claim 1.
Additionally, on page 12 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Nor are the recited limitations merely generic instructions to "apply" an abstract idea on a computer. The claims set forth a particular sequence of machine-implemented operations, including web-crawling, browser-cookie retrieval, feature-vector generation, machine-learning- based conflict prediction, transmission of a stop signal and associated data structure to a second server, dynamic prompt generation on the requesting device, and subsequent maintenance or withdrawal of the stop signal based on revised input… This is consistent with USPTO guidance recognizing that claims improving computer capabilities or improving a technology or technical field are not directed merely toward a judicial exception.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding how these processes are implemented. For example, simply stating that the method includes “web-crawling” a plurality of online resources does not provide any indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. The claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the web-crawling process is implemented. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely gathering data from a plurality of sources, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not recite any limitation that amounts to an improvement to computer capabilities.
Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Toomey (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20130304659): Describes a system for accessing unemployment insurance and workforce registration comprising in combination a database containing unemployment insurance benefit data and a database containing workforce registration data.
McDonald (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20120197666): Describes systems and methods for creating and implementing an unemployment insurance product that provides individuals with insurance coverage to replace income up to a certain amount in the event of involuntary unemployment.
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 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
Prosecution Insights