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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 2-21 are pending. Claims 2, 5, 10, 13, 18, and 19 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner argues that claim 2 recites commercial or legal interactions. The MPEP defines commercial or legal interactions as including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claimed features above do not recite a contract, legal obligation, advertisement, marketing material, a sales activity or behavior, or a business relation. The Examiner has provided no evidence establishing that any of the above features recite any of these types of commercial or legal interactions. As such, the Examiner's argument that the claims recite commercial or legal interactions is erroneous.
The Office asserts as before that the claims are directed to mitigating risk because they recite a verification process and the specification itself discloses that the process is directed to mitigating risk in 0003. Additionally, verifying an identity to grant access to commercial services is also a business relation or legal obligation related to compliance or liability mitigation. See Prism Technologies v. T-Mobile.
The Examiner also argues that the claims recite a fundamental economic principle, namely mitigating risk. The Examiner's sole piece of evidence demonstrating that the claims recite mitigating risks is the citation to paragraph [0004] of the application which is the background section of the application. This section states that initial user registration is an important process that requires secure verification of users to avoid risks associated with fraudulent use of service provider resources." Applicant respectfully submits that contrary to the Examiner's contentions, the claims do not recite mitigating risk. The Examiner's argument is erroneous because even if the specification states that risks are being avoided, in order to recite "mitigating risk" the claims must do so explicitly. The amended claims do not explicitly claim risk mitigation, even if the end result is mitigation of risk. For example, a parking brake mechanism on a car has an end result of "risk mitigation", but no Examiner would argue that the parking brake mechanism recites the abstract idea of risk mitigation. As such, the Examiner's argument is erroneous.
See response above.
The claims in Bilski explicitly recite balancing risk positions and use terms and phrases that define hedging risk. The court found that the claims in Bilski recite the abstract idea of hedging risk. The Examiner argues that the pending claims also recite mitigating risk. However, on the contrary, pending claim 2 does not actually recite mitigation of risk or any other fundamental economic principle. For example, the claims do not mention or include steps related to hedging, insurance, or mitigating risk. The Examiner's citation to the Background section of the application is not evidence that the claims explicitly recite mitigation of risk. The Background section of the application might provide insight as to what the claims might involve, however, again, claims that merely involve an exception are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Applicant respectfully submits that at worst, the claims might provide a technical solution that minimizes risks associated with fraudulent use of service provider resources. However, unlike Bilski, where the claims literally recited balancing the risk position of a series of consumer transactions, the pending claims do not actually recite mitigating any sort of risk.
The Office asserts that including 0003 the specification recites activities assessing risk twelve times in the specification. Whether the claims actually recite the term risk or mitigation, etc., is not dispositive.
Receiving an onboarding request from a user to register a user with a services platform requiring background verification does not recite mitigation of risk. There is no discussion of risk or mitigating risk at all. Similarly, "provide the at least one onboarding request to...a services exchange for accessing at least one verification service provider to process the at least one onboarding request" also does not recite13
mitigation of risk, or any sort of risk. Receiving an onboarding request result determined via the at least one verification service provider processing the at least one onboarding request also does not recite any sort of risk mitigation or risk at all. Finally, altering network settings of a services platform to allow or disallow network access to a set of services is also not an abstract idea in any way. None of these features highlighted by the Examiner refer to risk or other define risk in some meaningful way. At worst, they provide a technical solution that has an end result of mitigating risk, which is not the same as reciting mitigating risk under Step 2A, prong one of the subject matter eligibility analysis framework.
See responses above.
Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims include additional elements that reflect an improvement to computer technology or a technical field. For example, paragraph [0024] of the application highlights several improvements in computing technology and technological features provided by the claimed invention. These improvements include "providing dynamic verification processes for users registering and/or onboarding with a service provider. Such embodiments may improve, inter alia, the efficiency of computing systems managing service platforms and associated user accounts, services, transaction, and/or related articles." The claims reflect these improvements because the claims include features directed to the dynamic verification process. Namely, claim 2 recites receiving an onboarding request and then providing the onboarding request to the API gateway device to delegate the onboarding request to a services exchange for accessing a verification service provider. This dynamic verification process will improve the efficiency and performance of the services platform or other device because the processing of the verification step is offloaded to another device to perform, and which device is to perform the verification is determined by the API gateway, which provides the dynamic aspect of the verification. This in turn improves the functionality of the computing device such as the services platform by minimizing verification steps provided by the services platform. As such, claim 2 reflects at least one improvement in the functioning of a computer.
The Office asserts that offloading verification steps performed by the services platform does not improve the function of the services platform itself. Offloading services per se does not make the services platform more efficient but simply save local processing power. Additionally, the applicant does not explain how this efficiency is achieved beyond the mere assertion itself.
Moreover, the claimed invention does not merely "verify a user" or "display options," but instead implements a hardware-integrated gatekeeping mechanism where the "onboarding request result" is used to programmatically "change network settings" of the services platform. This creates a direct, technical link between the high-level verification logic and the underlying network architecture, ensuring that "network access" is dynamically and strictly partitioned based on a calculated "permission level."
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice framework, this integrates any abstract idea into a practical application by improving the functioning of the services platform itself. It provides a technical solution to the technical problem of unauthorized network access and inefficient resource allocation. Rather than relying on a static, "one-size-fits-all" access model, the system uses a "control signal" to synchronize the user device's interface with the platform's internal state, implementing the reconfiguration of the network environment. This specific improvement to network security and data integrity constitutes a meaningful limitation that moves the claim beyond a "method of organizing human activity" or "method of doing business" and into the realm of patent-eligible technological advancements.
The Office asserts that to “programmatically change network settings” is no more than “if-then” programming activity. Again, the function of the services platform is not improved by this basic activity.
Examiner's focus mostly on the claimed features individually, and does not consider the claimed features as a combination. Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed features are a combination of non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of features performed by a computing device to onboard a user to a service platform. As such, the non-conventional arrangement of features amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea and claim 2 is eligible under Ste 2B of the revised Alice framework.
The Office asserts that the applicant’s arguments do not indicate why the combination or arrangement is unconventional beyond the mere assertion itself.
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.
Claim(s) 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
2. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and a storage device in communication with the at least one processor, the storage device storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive at least one onboarding request from a user device to register a user with a services platform requiring background verification;
provide the at least one onboarding request to an edge orchestration layer executed by an application programming interface (API) gateway device to delegate the at least one onboarding request to a services exchange for accessing at least one verification service provider to process the at least one onboarding request;
receive an onboarding request result determined via the at least one verification service provider processing the at least one onboarding request;
determine, based on the onboarding request result, a permission level of a user account associated with the user;
transmit a control signal to the user device to display an eligible set of a plurality of service options on the user device based on the permission level of the user account; and
change network settings of the services platform to allow the user device to have network access to the eligible set of the plurality of service options offered by the services platform based on the onboarding request result.
Claims 10 and 18 are similar.
The underlined portions above represent the abstract idea and fall under certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial or legal interactions, business relations or fundamental economic principles, mitigating risk. The claims are directed to mitigating risk as shown by the specification in para. 0003: “Initial user registration is an important process that requires secure verification of users to avoid risks associated with fraudulent use of service provider resources.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations, processor, storage device, instructions, user device, edge orchestration layer, API, control signal, represent the computer implementation of the abstract idea, i.e., adding the words “apply it”, or the like, with the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to the computer implementation of the abstract idea as indicated above.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and as a whole and in combination the claims represent an abstract idea with the words apply it and are therefore not patent eligible, particularly:
3. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 2, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the at least one processor to:
access user profile information of the at least one onboarding request, and determine at least one verification service provider based on the user profile information in the at least one onboarding request, the at least one verification service provider optimized to verify the user based on at least one characteristic associated with the user specified in the user profile information.
Claim 3 merely narrows the abstract idea of verifying the user by providing further details on how the service provider is selected.
4. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 3, the at least one characteristic comprising at least one of a credit rating of the user, a user demographic, a service or product, a public user status, or a business user status.
Claim 4 merely narrows the abstract idea of verifying the user by providing further details on how the service provider processes the onboarding request.
5. (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 2, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the at least one processor to:
change network settings of the services platform to disallow the user device to have network access to the plurality of service options other than the eligible set based on the onboarding request result.
Claim 5 is the alternative to claim 2 but still recites the abstract idea of mitigating risk/gating.
6. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 2, the services exchange configured to determine an API for communicating with the at least one verification service provider.
Claim 6 merely provides generic computer elements used to communicate with the service provider.
7. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 6, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the at least one processor to receive one of know your customer (KYC) or anti-money laundering (AML) services from a third-party provider via the API for processing the at least one onboarding request.
Claim 7 merely narrows the abstract idea by providing further details on the onboarding request processing.
8. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 6, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the at least one processor to receive approval configuration information from a services exchange via the API, the approval configuration information to indicate at least one configuration of onboarding request information acceptable for the approved result.
Claim 8 describes the transmission of administrative parameters, narrowing the abstract idea and using generic elements in the process.
9. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 2, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the at least one processor to access a machine learning model trained to determine the at least one verification service provider optimized for background verification of the user with the services platform based on user profile information of the at least one onboarding request.
Claim 9 merely states that an ML model performs the process, which is the use of a generic element to perform an abstract idea.
Claims 11-17 and 19-21 are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights