DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Final Office Action in response to application 18/317,365 entitled "VARIABLE RISK ENGINE" filed on October 28, 2025, with claims 21-29, 32-37, 41, and 47-50 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 21, 24-25, 29, 32-33, 35, and 37 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 30-31, 38-39, and 40, 42, and 44 were previously cancelled.
Claims 43, 45 and 46 are newly cancelled.
Claims 48-50 are added.
Claims 21-29, 32-37, 41, and 47-50 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 25, 2026, has been entered. Claims 21-29, 32-37, 41, and 47-50 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 2, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on November 28, 2023; June 11, 2024; April 21, 2025; and October 28, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-29, 32-37, 41, 43, and 45- 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims 21, 29, and 37 state, “selecting a first computer processor”
The Specification never describes the selection of one processor unit over another.
None of the citation clearly describe the selection of one processor unit over another.
Therefore, the claims are rejected.
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 21-29, 32-37, 41, and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 21-29, 32-37, 41, and 47-50 are directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 21 recites:
“A … method for variable risk assessment comprising:
identifying one or more characteristics of a first … transaction based at least in part on electronic information, wherein the first … transaction is associated with a request for provision of an item or a service, wherein the request is associated with a first device and a first user;
based on the one or more characteristics of the first …. transaction:
selecting a first set of tests for a real-time risk analysis to aid in assessing a risk of fraud for the first … transaction, wherein the first set of tests is associated with a first risk weight and first user-specific information;
and determining a preconfigured time limit for the first set of tests for the real- time risk analysis;
selecting a first … for a first execution mode corresponding to performing the first set of tests so that the first set of tests can be completed within the preconfigured time limit;
generating a first result by performing, using the first …, the first set of tests for the real-time risk analysis contemporaneously with a first user session associated with the first … transaction, wherein performing the first set of tests comprises analyzing first data associated with the first .... transaction collected prior to expiration of the preconfigured time limit;
based on the first result, preliminarily approving the first … transaction while the first … transaction is in progress;
in response to preliminarily approving the first … transaction, generating display instructions configured to… display an indication of the first result comprising an approval of the request during the first user session;
selecting, based on the one or more characteristics of the first … transaction, a second set of tests for a time-delayed risk analysis that is to be performed after the first …. transaction is preliminarily approved, wherein the second set of tests is associated with a second risk weight and second user-specific information, and wherein performing the second set of tests is delayed until after the expiration of the preconfigured time limit;
selecting a second execution mode corresponding to performing the second set of tests so that the second set of tests can be initiated after the expiration of the preconfigured time limit;
after termination of the first user session, generating a second result by performing, using a second …, the second set of tests for the time-delayed risk analysis, wherein performing the second set of tests comprises analyzing second data associated with the first .... transaction collected after the expiration of the preconfigured time limit;
assessing the risk of fraud for the first … transaction based at least in part on the first result and the second result, wherein the risk of fraud is inversely proportional to a total amount of time spent on performing the real-time risk analysis and the time-delayed risk analysis such that while the total amount of time increases the risk of fraud decreases;
based on the assessed risk of fraud, finally approving the first … transaction;
and in response to finally approving the first … transaction, causing provision of the item or the service.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/users and/or service providers. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to identify one or more characteristics of a...transaction and assess risk of fraud for the...transaction recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computerized] [online] [a first device] [using a computer processor,] [when executed by the first device][using the computer processor,]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[0023] devices may include user computers whether they be a personal computer, server computer, or laptop computer; tablet; personal digital assistants (PDAs) such as a Palm-based device or Windows CE device; phones such as cellular phones, smartphones (e.g., iPhone, Black Android, Treo);... or any other type of network device
[0026] browser application, such as Microsoft. Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, when executed by the processor, permits the user to access the World Wide Web as is well known
[0038] network devices may be computers or any other type of network device”.
[0052] A test or process may be run to assess a risk. A test or process may be algorithmic, rulesbased.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 22:
“computerized”, “device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 23:
“computerized”, “device”, “user interface”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 24:
“computerized”, “computer processor”, “online”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 25:
“computerized”, “online”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 26:
“computerized”, “online”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 27:
“computerized”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 28:
“computerized”, “online”, “network device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 47:
“computerized”, “computer processor”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 48:
“computerized”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 49:
“computerized”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 50:
“computerized”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[0023] devices may include user computers whether they be a personal computer, server computer, or laptop computer; tablet; personal digital assistants (PDAs) such as a Palm-based device or Windows CE device; phones such as cellular phones, smartphones (e.g., iPhone, Black Android, Treo);... or any other type of network device
[0026] browser application, such as Microsoft. Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, when executed by the processor, permits the user to access the World Wide Web as is well known
[0038] network devices may be computers or any other type of network device”.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 29 recites:
“A system for variable risk assessment, the system comprising:
an institution …;
and…, wherein the institution … is configured to perform, with aid of …, a risk analysis of a first .... transaction with the device, and wherein the institution …:
identifying one or more characteristics of a first .... transaction based at least in part on electronic information, wherein the first .... transaction is associated with a request for provision of an item or a service, wherein the request is associated with a first device and a first user;
based on the one or more characteristics of the first …. transaction:
selecting a first set of tests for a real-time risk analysis to aid in assessing a risk of fraud for the first …. transaction, wherein the first set of tests is associated with a first risk weight and first user-specific information;
and determining a preconfigured time limit for the first set of tests for the real-time risk analysis;
selecting the first … for a first execution mode corresponding to performing the first set of tests so that the first set of tests can be completed within the preconfigured time limit;
generating a first result by performing, using the first … the first set of tests for the real-time risk analysis contemporaneously with a first user session associated with the first … transaction, wherein performing the first set of tests comprises analyzing first data associated with the first …. transaction collected prior to expiration of the reconfigured time limit;
based on the first result, preliminarily approving the first…transaction while the first … transaction is in progress;
in response to preliminarily approving the first … transaction, generating display instructions configured to, when executed by the first device, display an indication of the first result comprising an approval of the request during the first user session;
selecting, based on the one or more characteristics of the first … transaction, a second set of tests for a time-delayed risk analysis that is to be performed after the first … transaction is preliminarily approved, wherein the second set of tests is associated with a second risk weight and second user-specific information, and wherein performing the second set of tests is delayed until after the expiration of the preconfigured time limit;
selecting a second execution mode corresponding to performing the second set of tests so that the second set of tests can be initiated after the expiration of the preconfigured time limit;
after termination of the first user session, generating a second result by performing, using the second …, the second set of tests for the time-delayed risk analysis, wherein performing the second set of tests comprises analyzing second data associated with the first .... transaction collected after the expiration of the preconfigured time limit;
assessing the risk of fraud for the first … transaction based at least in part on the first result and the second result, wherein the risk of fraud is inversely proportional to a total amount of time spent on performing the real-time risk analysis and the time-delayed risk analysis such that while the total amount of time increases the risk of fraud decreases;
based on the assessed risk of fraud, finally approving the first … transaction;
and in response to finally approving the first … transaction, causing provision of the item or the service.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/users and/or service providers. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to identify one or more characteristics of a...transaction and assess risk of fraud for the...transaction recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[server][ a device in communication with the institution server ][of a computer processor][using a computer processor] [a first computer processor and a second computer processor] [online][with the device][electronic][a first device][when executed by the first device]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[0023] devices may include user computers whether they be a personal computer, server computer, or laptop computer; tablet; personal digital assistants (PDAs) such as a Palm-based device or Windows CE device; phones such as cellular phones, smartphones (e.g., iPhone, Black Android, Treo);... or any other type of network device
[0026] browser application, such as Microsoft. Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, when executed by the processor, permits the user to access the World Wide Web as is well known
[0038] network devices may be computers or any other type of network device”.
[0052] A test or process may be run to assess a risk. A test or process may be algorithmic, rulesbased.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 29 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 32:
“server”, “computer processor”, “online”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 33:
“server”, “online”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 34:
“online”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 35: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 36:
“online”, “network device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[0023] devices may include user computers whether they be a personal computer, server computer, or laptop computer; tablet; personal digital assistants (PDAs) such as a Palm-based device or Windows CE device; phones such as cellular phones, smartphones (e.g., iPhone, Black Android, Treo);... or any other type of network device
[0026] browser application, such as Microsoft. Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, when executed by the processor, permits the user to access the World Wide Web as is well known
[0038] network devices may be computers or any other type of network device”.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 37 recites:
“…for variable risk assessment …comprising:
identifying one or more characteristics of a first …transaction based at least in part on …information, wherein the first … transaction is associated with a request for provision of an item or a service, wherein the request is associated with …and a first user;
based on the one or more characteristics of the first … transaction:
selecting a first set of tests for a real-time risk analysis to aid in assessing a risk of fraud for the first ... transaction, wherein the first set of tests is associated with a first risk weight and first user-specific information;
and determining a preconfigured time limit for the first set of tests for the real- time risk analysis;
selecting a first … for a first execution mode corresponding to performing the first set of tests so that the first set of tests can be completed within he preconfigured time limit;
generating a first result by performing, using the first … the first set of tests for the real-time risk analysis contemporaneously with a first user session associated with the first … transaction, wherein performing the first set of tests comprises analyzing first data associated with the first … transaction collected prior to expiration of the preconfigured time limit;
based on the first result, preliminarily approving the first … transaction while the first …. transaction is in progress;
in response to preliminarily approving the first … transaction, generating display instructions configured to, …, display an indication of the first result comprising an approval of the request during the first user session;
selecting, based on the one or more characteristics of the first … transaction, a second set of tests for a time-delayed risk analysis that is to be performed after the first .... transaction is preliminarily approved, wherein the second set of tests is associated with a second risk weight and second user-specific information, and wherein performing the second set of tests is delayed until after the expiration of the preconfigured time limit;
selecting a second execution mode corresponding to performing the second set of tests so that the second set of tests can be initiated after the expiration of the preconfigured time limit;
after termination of the first user session, generating a second result by performing, …, the second set of tests for the time-delayed risk analysis, wherein performing the second set of tests comprises analyzing second data associated with the first … transaction collected after the expiration of the preconfigured time limit;
assessing the risk of fraud for the first … transaction based at least in part on the first result and the second result, wherein the risk of fraud is inversely proportional to a total amount of time spent on performing the real-time risk analysis and the time-delayed risk analysis such that while the total amount of time increases the risk of fraud decreases;
based on the assessed risk of fraud, finally approving the first … transaction;
and in response to finally approving the first … transaction, causing provision of the item or the service.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/users and/or service providers. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to identify one or more characteristics of a...transaction and assess risk of fraud for the...transaction recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[A non-transitory computer readable medium] [having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, the computer-executable instructions readable by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, wherein the computer-executable instructions are executable on the computing system in order to cause the computing system to perform operations], [online][electronic][a first device][using a computer processor][ when executed by the first device]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[0023] devices may include user computers whether they be a personal computer, server computer, or laptop computer; tablet; personal digital assistants (PDAs) such as a Palm-based device or Windows CE device; phones such as cellular phones, smartphones (e.g., iPhone, Black Android, Treo);... or any other type of network device
[0026] browser application, such as Microsoft. Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, when executed by the processor, permits the user to access the World Wide Web as is well known
[0038] network devices may be computers or any other type of network device”.
[0052] A test or process may be run to assess a risk. A test or process may be algorithmic, rulesbased.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 37 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 41:
“non-transitory computer readable medium”, “online”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[0023] devices may include user computers whether they be a personal computer, server computer, or laptop computer; tablet; personal digital assistants (PDAs) such as a Palm-based device or Windows CE device; phones such as cellular phones, smartphones (e.g., iPhone, Black Android, Treo);... or any other type of network device
[0026] browser application, such as Microsoft. Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, when executed by the processor, permits the user to access the World Wide Web as is well known
[0038] network devices may be computers or any other type of network device”.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
“[0023] devices may include user computers whether they be a personal computer, server computer, or laptop computer; tablet; personal digital assistants (PDAs) such as a Palm-based device or Windows CE device; phones such as cellular phones, smartphones (e.g., iPhone, Black Android, Treo);... or any other type of network device
[0026] browser application, such as Microsoft. Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, when executed by the processor, permits the user to access the World Wide Web as is well known
[0038] network devices may be computers or any other type of network device”.
The additional elements merely add 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). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on February 25, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant's amendments rectify the previous rejections under 35 USC § 112.
The previous rejection of claims under 35 USC § 112 were not fully addressed.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 112 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite a practical application of the alleged abstract idea, and thus are not "directed to" an abstract idea."
Examiner responds:
The limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/users and/or service providers. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to identify one or more characteristics of a...transaction and assess risk of fraud for the...transaction recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The Applicant states:
“recited in the claims to a specific contextual environment including one or more of: (1) determining and applying a preconfigured time limit to real-time risk analysis performed contemporaneously with a user session, (2) preliminarily approving the transaction while it is in progress based on the real-time result, and (3) after termination of the user session and expiration of the preconfigured time limit, performing a time- delayed risk analysis and assessing risk based on both results, thereby controlling system behavior across two different time phases to maximize "the risk management yield on a time curve… This is analogous to the claims found to be patent-eligible in Ex Part Smith"
Examiner responds:
The second and third steps perform abstract ideas. The acts of “approving the transaction” and “performing a time- delayed risk analysis and assessing risk… to maximize ‘the risk management yield on a time curve’” again recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding the first action of “determining and applying a preconfigured time limit” and its relationship to Ex Part Smith, the Examiner consulted with the quality assurance group as promised during the interview on January 28, 2026. The Instant Application and the case of Ex Parte Smith differ significantly other than the existence of timers. The timer in Ex Parte Smith was a software application that controlled a computer to solve a problem: “Appellants further contend the claims provide a technological improvement because they allow for in-crowd market participant input in automated trade processing that would ordinarily bypass such participants…. through the ‘removal of a portion of an order from a database while delaying automated execution and communicating via a network that the portion has been traded to permit another in-crowd market participant to submit quotes during the delay.’… In particular, these (timer) additional elements limit the conventional practice of automatically executing matching market orders by reciting a specific timing mechanism in which the execution of a matching order is delayed for a specific period of time…. The use of the recited "timer" does not occur with each and every trade. Rather, it is implemented in specific circumstances in a specific trading environment”
Within this Instant Application, the timer is acting in its normal capacity, where it is used to determine the end of time limit. It is used to measure an amount of time. It does not control the computer in any particular manner and does not solve a problem. Moreover, the timer and fraud tests are determined by a human person rather than a machine as the Specification reads:
[0055] A system user may select any length of time
[0056] a user of a system may select the number or type of tests or processes that may be conducted during the real-time analysis. For example, the system user may select 3 tests to run during real-time processing.
[0075] In some examples a user can select between different risk assessment levels.
The timers act uniformly as expected. In the absence of unexpected results, changes or alteration of sequence does not make for a patentable invention, see Ex Parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) ; In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)
As a result, the timers fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, Examiner finds no parallels with Ex Parte Smith.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments overcome the prior art of record via the addition of the following elements not found in those references:
“performing the second set of tests is delayed until after the expiration of the preconfigured time limit;
selecting a second execution mode corresponding to performing the second set of tests so that the second set of tests can be initiated after the expiration of the preconfigured time limit”
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is lifted.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wikipedia (“Multiprocessing”, retrieved August 16 2010) states, “Multiprocessing is the use of two or more central processing units (CPUs) within a single computer system…the ability to allocate tasks between them…In a multiprocessing system, all CPUs may be equal, or some may be reserved for special purposes….execution of kernel-mode code may be restricted to only one processor…In systems where all CPUs are not equal, system resources may be divided in a number of ways, including asymmetric multiprocessing (ASMP), non-uniform memory access (NUMA) multiprocessing, and clustered multiprocessing…”
AWS (“What’s the Difference Between GPUs and CPUs?”, 2023) teaches, “A graphics processing unit (GPU) is a similar hardware component but more specialized. It can more efficiently handle complex mathematical operations that run in parallel than a general CPU…. Hardware manufacturers began to recognize that offloading common multimedia-oriented tasks could relieve the CPU and increase performance…. Specific workloads are better suited to run on servers with GPUs that perform certain functions more efficiently. For example, GPUs can be great for floating point number calculations, graphics processing, or data pattern matching.”
Smith-Mickelson (“METRIC-BASED MONITORING AND CONTROL OF A LIMITED RESOURCE”, U.S. Publication Number: 20060059568 A1) proposes detecting unauthorized or excessive use of a resource is disclosed. The value of a metric is updated based at least in part on a first data associated with a current event associated with the metric and a second data associated with a most recent prior event associated with the metric. Responsive action is taken if the updated value of the metric exceeds a threshold.
Abrahams (“COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LOAN EVALUATION USING A CREDIT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK”, U.S. Publication Number: 20090299911 A1) proposes evaluating loan applications. A computer environment can include a loan evaluation system which operates on a processor-based system and which evaluates loan applications. A credit assessment framework is also provided for operating on the processor-based system and has a data connection to the loan evaluation system. The credit assessment framework generates a categorization of credit risk for each of the loan applications to be evaluated.
Granbery (“EXTENDING TEMPORARY CREDIT BASED ON RISK FACTORS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20150287138 A1) proposes extending short term credit to a user when a user enters a location or checks in to a location. The credit may be extended based on a risk score determined based on risk factors associated with the user. The risk factors used to determine the risk score may include a purchase history, a payment history, past amounts paid, a first number of credit cards associated with the user, and past credit extended to the user. Credit information from a credit server may also be used to determine the risk score. The determined risk score may be compared to one or more thresholds to determine if credit should be extended to the user and, if credit is to be extended, the amount of credit to be extended.
Bowman (“A VIEW CONFIGURER IN A PRESENTATION SERVICES PATTERNS ENVIROMENT”, U.S. Publication Number: 20030058277 A1) provides assigning a view to an activity. Notification is received that a startup event of an activity has occurred. A reference to a first instance of an object created by the startup event of the activity is also received. A view to launch is determined in response to the receipt of the notification and the reference. The view is based on predetermined criteria. The view is associated with the activity and displayed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights