DETAILED ACTION
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 on April 15, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending and 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 1-20 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.
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
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 1-8) and a machine (claims 9-20), 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.
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. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of predicting the likelihood of an employment triggering status attribute for a user based on the financial data of multiple users by:
receiving a request to create a secure loan dataset;
retrieving one or more data records associated with a user profile and a secure loan dataset associated with a first user, the one or more data records comprising at least a triggering employment status attribute to execute a financial transaction associated with the secure loan dataset;
mapping one or more data records associated with the user profile and the secure loan to one or more corresponding data records within the secure loan dataset, wherein the mapping comprises:
converting disparate file formats and data types,…, and,…,into a unified and data-format-agnostic dataset that is compatible with each of the employer,…, and the recordkeeping,…,;
structuring converted disparate file formats and data types into a unified and data-format-agnostic dataset that is compatible with each of the employer,…, and the recordkeeping,…,, wherein the unified and data-format-agnostic dataset is configured for use by each of the employer,…, and the recordkeeping,…, without source-format-specific translation; and
storing the unified and data-format-agnostic dataset as the secure loan dataset;
monitoring data associated with a modification to the triggering employment status attribute of a plurality of users of an enterprise, wherein the monitoring comprises real-time querying of the employer,…, using the data-format-agnostic dataset to retrieve at least one employment status change including transmitting a machine-readable query to the employer,…, using the unified and data format agnostic dataset;
generating a training dataset in accordance with an outcome of the triggering employment status;
training, using the training dataset and data associated with the plurality of users;
executing, using data associated with a second user to predict data associated with the triggering employment status attribute; and
generating a notification that includes a likelihood of the triggering employment status attribute for the second user.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., predicting the likelihood of an employment triggering status attribute for a user based on the financial data of multiple users).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are 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)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Independent claims 9 and 17 are nearly identical to independent claim 1 so the same analysis applies to those two claims as well. Claim 9 includes an additional element (“a non-transitory machine-readable memory”) that is being used to implement the abstract idea noted in claim 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “device,” “server,” and “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 to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0017] of the specification).
Dependent claims 2–8 and 10–20 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe what the monitoring of data consists of (“web-crawling one or more online sources…”). Dependent claims 3, 11, and 19 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the data comprises both macro-economic and micro-economic data. This is the specific type of data being used. Dependent claims 4, 12, and 20 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the predicting of the data is a likelihood of a loan default for the second user. Dependent claims 5 and 13 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe what the data comprises of (“financial data associated with the employer”). Dependent claims 6 and 14 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe executing the predictive model to predict a likelihood of triggering employment status of the employer entity and then generating a notification of this. Dependent claims 7 and 15 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe querying one or more sources to identify data associated with the employer entity. Dependent claims 8 and 16 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the data is news associated with the employer entity.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The examiner considers the following reference(s) pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
MOSSOBA et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0188942) teaches an income analysis platform associated with employee-related activity of a user which is based on the employment status of the user. Although the invention in MOSSOBA describes determining an employment status of a user and any changes to this status similar to the current invention, it fails to disclose the following limitations of the current invention:
“retrieving, by the server from an employer server and a recordkeeping server, one or more data records associated with a user profile and a secure loan dataset associated with a first user, the one or more data records comprising at least a triggering employment status attribute that causes the server to execute a financial transaction associated with the secure loan dataset;
mapping, by the server, one or more data records associated with the user profile and the
secure loan to one or more corresponding data records within the secure loan dataset;
monitoring, by the server, data associated with a modification to the triggering employment status attribute of a plurality of users of an enterprise;
training, by the server, a predictive model using the data associated with the plurality of
users;
executing, by the server, the predictive model using data associated with a second user to predict data associated with the triggering employment status attribute…”
MOSSOBA does not disclose the above limitations that relate to comparing the data of a plurality of users relating to employment status to a target user utilizing a machine learning model to then predict the likelihood of the triggering employment status attribute for the target user. This determines whether or not the user can pay back the loan taken out based on this trigger employment status attribute. This is not taught by MOSSOBA or the prior art.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed on April 15, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that “[t]he claims are not directed merely toward organizing human activity, nor do they merely use a generic computer as a tool to automate a business practice.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 8). Examiner disagrees. The recited abstract idea here 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 or legal interactions (e.g., predicting the likelihood of an employment triggering status attribute for a user based on the financial data of multiple users). This invention has to do with using financial data in order to predict the likelihood of the triggering employment status attribute for a user. This most certainly falls into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial or legal interactions.
Applicant next argues that “[e]ven if the Office were to characterize some aspects of the predictive modeling as involving an abstract idea, the amended claims plainly integrate any such concept into a practical application. The claims are directed to a specific improvement in the way computers exchange, normalize, store, and act upon data originating from multiple incompatible enterprise systems.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, pp. 12-13). However, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are 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)). Merely using a predictive model and training it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Using a specific data format to carry out these generic processes does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There are also no interactive elements as part of the claims of this invention. Instead, all of these processes are operating in the backend without any direct user input.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amit Patel whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights