DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2.. An Amendment was filed November 25, 2025 (hereinafter “Amendment”) and has been entered into the record and fully considered. The Amendment was filed in response to a Non-Final Rejection dated August 27, 2025.
Despite the Amendment to the Claims and Applicant’s remarks, the Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection are hereby maintained; although, the Rejection under §103 is based on new grounds necessitated by the Amendment.
An explanation of the maintained Rejections and a response to Applicant’s arguments are set forth below. Please see the “Conclusion” section of this Action below for important information regarding responding to this Action.
Status of the Claims:
Claims 1, 3 – 5, and 7 – 8 are pending in this Application.
Only one independent Claim – Claim 1 - is pending in this action.
Dependent Claims 2 and 6 were cancelled but their limitations were not incorporated into Claim 1 verbatim.
The dependent Claims 3 – 8 were not amended.
Therefore, the following explanation of the maintained rejections with regard to Claim 1 is considered explanatory of the Rejection as a whole.
NOTE: interviews are welcome at any stage of prosecution. Please use the AIR form, the link for which can be found at the end of this action, to schedule the interview.
The Claims are examined as follows:
With regard to the Amendment:
Claim 1 was amended as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
686
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Summary of the Amendment and Broadest Reasonable Interpretation:
Claim terminology is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, consistent with the specification. This is true, unless the terms are given a special meaning. See MPEP §2111.01
Here, no special meaning is detected. As noted in the Amendment, the
changes to Claim 1 relate generally to a series of mathematical calculations in generate or calculate scores and then combine them in an aggregated synthetic identity score. The early detection score is calculated using a weighted decision matrix. There is no specificity as to “how” these calculations are achieved.
The profile score is calculated – as broadly recited in the Claim – based on prior transactions.
These terms appear – subject to further consideration – to be defined in the specification based on their plain and ordinary meaning.
With regard to §101:
Respectfully, despite the amendments to the Claim, the limitations are recited at an extremely high level. There is no specificity as to “how” the matrix is created or used or how the values of the matrix are “weighted.” There is even less specificity as to “how” the profile score is calculated. And the aggregation or combination of the scores – in calculating the assessment metric – is even more cryptic: the Claim only recites that the metric is “based” “in part” on the two scores. It is not clear from this recitation if the assessment metric is based on both scores or parts of both scores or parts of only one score but not necessarily the other score.
The Claim is woefully lacking in the specificity required by §101.
Furthermore, in addition to the method of organizing human activity as explained in the Non-Final Rejection ,it is clear that the “generating” and “calculating” steps constitute mathematical calculations within the meaning of §101:
2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022]
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
C. Mathematical Calculations
A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
((Emphasis Added and other emphasis in the original.)
Respectfully, the Amendment does not advance prosecution substantially.
Thus, the amendments to the Claim do not alter the analysis set for the Non-Final Rejection regarding §101. The Claim merely recites a series of mathematical calculations to generate and combine scores in some unspecified manner. These are very common computerized functions. These limitations are recited at a very high level of generality.
The Claim provides no specificity in terms of how this is accomplished or what algorithms are used or whether they are special or used or applied in any special way. Only the mere outcome or result of an assessment metric is recited. These are common calculations. No special functionality is recited. No new computerized components are recited.
These limitations recite results or “outcome” of computer processing without specifying “how” a technical problem is solved. That is, the solution of a technical problem is not reflected in the Claim.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer elements at each step of the process is purely typical of calculating scores. Without greater specificity as to “how” certain functions solve a technical problem, the currently recited limitations can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of the Claim add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer elements nor does the claim reflect how an improvement in any other technology or technical field is achieved. Thus, Claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than instructions to “apply” the abstract idea of generating an AI chatbot to provide an estimate of a home for the purpose of some insurance product using some unspecified, generic algorithm and computer components. Such is not sufficient to integrate a practical application in the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the Rejection is maintained.
With regard to §103:
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3 – 5, and 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0245139 Shen et al. (hereinafter “Shen) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0241120 to Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0122149 to Caldera et al. (hereinafter “Caldera”).
The new reference to Caldera is directly on point with the claimed invention.
The title is: Enhanced System and Method for Identity Evaluation Using a Global Score Value
The Abstract, in part, reads as follows:
“The proposed system aims to perform regulatory identification in a given transaction context. Through this system, clients validate customers via multiple angles, specifically, risk-based authentication and identity risk analysis. Ultimately the output recommendation helps clients decide whether to proceed with the transaction.
Clients use the system in a variety of contexts. In the KYC (Know Your Customer) context, clients often are legally required to vet prospective customers thoroughly. For instance, it might be illegal to do business with someone from a sanctioned country, or someone on a sanctioned list provided by OFAC. In the anti-fraud context, clients have a different set of concerns. They care more about the identity risk of the transaction. They might want to know if an identity they encountered is a synthetic identity, and stop the fraudulent transaction from going through. IDM can provide a recommendation on both of the contexts above, with a measure of estimated confidence.” (Emphasis Added)
Caldera teaches the use of aggregated scores i.e. a “global score” and weighted attributes as follows:
“[0032] FIG. 24 shows a method of access control based on a graph score according to one embodiment.
[0037] FIG. 34 show a method for enhanced identity evaluation using a global score value.
[0081] In FIG. 4, based on reports on the consequences of providing accesses made via the access token (141), providing access by receiving access token (141) from devices represented by the device identities (e.g., 185), and providing access to persons represented by user identities (189), the system may generate reputation scores (e.g., 181) for access tokens (e.g., 141), reputation scores (e.g., 182) for the device identity (185), and reputation scores (e.g., 1830 for the user identity (189). In one embodiment, the reputation score of an access token (141), a device identity (185), or a user identity (198) represents the probability that an access made via the access token (141), the device identity (185), or the user identity (198) has a undesirable consequence.
[0082] In processing the user authentication and/or access control of a specific instance of the use of the access token (141), the controller (101) extracts the data fields from the contextual data received in connection with the instance of the use of the access token (141) and determines the matching device identity (e.g., 185) and/or the matching user identity (e.g., 189). Based on the degree of matching and the reputation scores of the access token (141), the device identity (e.g., 185) and the user identity (e.g., 189), the controller (101) determines a trust score for the specific instance of the use of the access token (141). Based on the trust score, the controller (101) authenticates the user and/or controls the access.
[0087] The controller (101) is further configured to evaluate (209) a trust score based on a degree of matching between the set of user attributes and device attributes and the respective attributes of the matched user entity (189), a reputation score (183) of the identity (189) of the user (e.g., 131, 133, . . . , or 139), a reputation score (181) of the access token (141), a reputation score (182) of the identity (185) of the device, and a degree of strength of a connection between the access token (141) and the device entity (185).
[0088] Based on the trust score, the controller (101) approves, rejects or further investigates (211) the request to access the system.
[0090] In one embodiment, each attribute is assigned a predetermined weight. A degree of matching is computed in the form of a matching score that is a function of the sum of the weights of the matched attributes (Wa), the sum of the weights of the mismatched attributes (Wb), the sum of the weights of the attributes that have no data for the current access request (Wc), and the sum of the weights of all attributes (Wd). For example, the matching score of one embodiment is computed as a function of (Wa*Wa−2*Wb−Wc)/(Wd*Wd).” (Emphasis Added)
Caldera also teaches the use of list of fake user identities from which attributes of such identities can be drawn for use in calculating one or more scores:
[0222] Typically, such a triggering change could include adding or removing network members, or a change in status of a person close to the person on the predetermined list (e.g., PEP John 501), such as the change of status of a person who is connected to the listed person (e.g., 501) with one or two degrees of separation in the network (e.g., having a first or second relationship to the PEP).
[0223] In FIG. 20, the controller (101) identifies an identity of an graph of a network original network (e.g., the user identity of John (501)) and retrieves (515), from the data storage unit of the controller (101), the network data identifying the network of user entities. Based on recent access activities, the controller (101) creates (517) a list of changes in the network.
[0231] In FIG. 21, the controller (101) determines (541) whether the user identities identified from the change are trustworthy. For example, the controller (101) may change whether any of the user identities are on a list of fake user identities and/or suspicious user identities. For example, the controller (101) may count those of the user identities that are on a list of fake user identities and/or suspicious user identities and determine if the count is about a threshold.” (Emphasis Added)
Thus, in combination with the previously-cited references, Claim 1 is rendered obvious. For example, Shen teaches as follows:’
A “set” of synthetic identity attributes, which is akin to a “list.” See 0044 and 0047-0051
A weighted matrix in the sense that threshold values are set in connection with the decision matrix. See 0098, 0097-0102
Combining or aggregating scores. See 0026, 0068
Attributes are listed and combined. See Fig. 3 and 0013, 0061-0067
As noted in the Non-Final Rejection, Chen also teaches the use of aggregated scores. See 0040-0048.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing the claimed invention to have modified the synthetic identity detection system of Shen in view of Chen to add the global score and weighted value teachings of Caldera. The motivation to do so comes from Shen. As quoted above, Shen teaches the use of output values, such as “true” in connection with attempted use of a synthetic identity. It would greatly enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the system of Shen to use the combined score and weighted value teachings of Caldera.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments set forth in the Remarks section of the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to section 101 rejection, Applicant argues as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
312
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Office respectfully is puzzled by the citation to Core Wireless. In that case, there was a technical improvement to solve a technical problem in terms of the user interface. Here there is no such or similar technical solution, nor is there a specific improvement to the field of synthetic identities. While there is general reference in the claim to generating scores and using a weighted decision matrix to detect such identities, these limitations are recited at an extremely high level of generality, as noted above.
Indeed, as explained above, the claim also is directed to mathematical concepts which are defined in the MPEP to include mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). Thus, these and Applicant’s other arguments are not found to be persuasive. Furthermore, it is not clear how the
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
alleged technical solution to a technical problem is “reflected” in the Claim.
The Rejection must stand.
With regard to §103, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of Rejection.
Conclusion
4. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Finality
The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07. 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.
B. Search and Prior Art
The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as any previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields (e.g. detecting synthetic identities). . Indeed, there is a plethora of prior art in these fields.
Therefore, in addition to prior art references cited and applied in connection with this and any previous Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0114466 to Blumenfeld et al. This reference relates to the concept of a weighted average.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0164173 to Liu et al. This reference relates to the concept of a combination of scores and/or attributes.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0099431 to Wasicek et al. This reference relates to the concept of a synthetic profile.
B. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
C. Interviews and Compact Prosecution
The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification.
Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. TEAMS). To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests the use of the AIR form as follows:
USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, the use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged.
D. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
(571) 272-0017 - office
william.bunker@uspto.gov
February 3, 2026
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691