DETAILED ACTION Status of the Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following is in response to an amendment filed on September 8, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 16-17 and 22-24 are amended. Claims 1-3, 5-17 and 19-26 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection Analysis
101 Analysis
In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The analysis in line with current 101 guidelines. Even if the abstract idea is deemed to be novel, the abstract idea is no less abstract (see Flook- new mathematical formula was an abstract idea).
“ In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
Step 1: Claim 1 which is illustrative of independent claims 16 and 22-23 recites:
A computer-implemented method to determine a financial score, the method comprising:
obtaining health data indicative of health of a user from one or more sensors of a wearable device, the sensors configured to dynamically monitor metrics related to the health of the user;
determining, based on the health data, a health score of the user;
obtaining credit data indicative of a credit score of the user;
determining, based on the credit data, a credit score of the user;
obtaining environment data indicative of a current environment of the user; determining, based on the environment data, an environment score of the user; and
determining, based on a combination of the health score, the credit score, and the environment score, a financial score of the user[[.]] wherein the method further comprises obtaining new health data using the sensors of the wearable device that detect user biometrics, the obtaining comprising;
determining an activity of the user; and in response to the determining the activity of the user, requesting new health data indicative of the health of user, and
updating the health score to be reflective of the new health data, and in response to receiving the new health data, dynamically updating the financial score of the user.”
2A, Prong One, Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity that is a fundamental economic practice of risk scoring. It is also a form of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) which generates a dynamic financial score using a wide variety of data sources for the assessment of an individual’s financial well-being(App. Spec. paras. 00017-0019).This suggests making a determination of an individual’s financial health based on a variety of activities against predefined criteria including health data (see App Spec. Figs. 2A-C).
2A; Prong Two
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements recite hardware components such as wearable device or and processors, there does not appear to be any technology being improved.
They are described at a high level of generality where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components. (see App. Spec. paras. 0029-0034)
Unlike, McRO, the present claims contain improvements to the context in which transactions are executed and not one of a technology or technological field.
Although the claims recite:
obtaining health data indicative of health of a user from one or more sensors of a wearable device, the sensors configured to dynamically monitor metrics related to the health of the user;
determining, based on the health data, a health score of the user;
…
determining, based on a combination of the health score, the credit score, and the environment score, a financial score of the user[[.]] wherein the method further comprises obtaining new health data using the sensors of the wearable device that detect user biometrics, the obtaining comprising;
determining an activity of the user; and in response to the determining the activity of the user, requesting new health data indicative of the health of user, and
these suggest receiving input from different data sources used in assessing the financial health of an individual, absent is any support for the claims as recited for how it is an improvement to the computer or technical field beyond automating the evaluation process.
In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field of accessing the user’s data from the different sources, because the data processing performed merely uses a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The invention as claimed recites a generic computer component and the claim does not pass step 2A, Prong Two. There is no integration of the judicial exception
Step 2B; The next step is to identify any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The additional elements wearable device and processor(s) which are disclosed in the specification at a high degree of generality. Absent is any genuine issue of material fact that this component requires any specialized hardware or inventive computer component.
Likewise, the dependent claims 2-3, 5-15, 17, 19-21 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, claims 2-3 and 5 provide descriptive details about the factors or conditions for executing the financial health score request assessment These claim limitations recite steps at a high level of generality and performed in a traditional manner and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claims 1, 16 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 including dependent claims 2-3, 5-15, 17, 19-21 and 24-26 which fall with independent claims 1,16 and 22- 23. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-17 and 19-26 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 1-3, 5-17 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Claim 1 which is illustrative of the independent claims including 16 and 22- 23 recite:
A computer-implemented method to determine a financial score, the method comprising:
obtaining health data indicative of health of a user from one or more sensors of a wearable device, the sensors configured to dynamically monitor metrics related to the health of the user;
determining, based on the health data, a health score of the user;
obtaining credit data indicative of a credit score of the user;
determining, based on the credit data, a credit score of the user;
obtaining environment data indicative of a current environment of the user; determining, based on the environment data, an environment score of the user; and determining, based on a combination of the health score, the credit score, and the environment score, a financial score of the user[[.]] wherein the method further comprises obtaining new health data using the sensors of the wearable device that detect user biometrics, the obtaining comprising;
determining an activity of the user; and in response to the determining the activity of the user, requesting new health data indicative of the health of user, and
updating the health score to be reflective of the new health data, and in response to receiving the new health data, dynamically updating the financial score of the user.
-
Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention (as recited in claims 1-3, 5-17 and 19-26) is directed towards an abstract idea of evaluating a person’s creditworthiness. based on pre-defined rules. This is a method of organizing human activity that is a fundamental economic practice of evaluating a person’s creditworthiness. It is also a form of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because it is leveraging access to information from different commercial relationships.
It can also be considered a mental process practically with the human mind since it entails making comparisons of data albeit with the help of a computer. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g. processor; see App. specification, paras. 0028-0035; Fig. 1).
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components to execute the steps.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements - (e.g. wearable device, processor) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-15, 17, 19-21 and 24-26 provide additonal details about the different step and how the predefined rules are applied to the evaluation process. For example, claims 2-6 and 24-26 describe the type of information that is used for determining the score and also descriptions of how the data is used to perform the evaluation and do not address the issues raised in the independent claims and therefore do not amount to a technical improvement or an integration of a practical application.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-3, 5-17 and 19-26 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Laptiev, USP Pub. No. 20230177512 (Generating A Fraud Prediction Utilizing A Fraud-Prediction Machine-Learning Model)
Thakur, USP No. 8290838 (Indicating Irregularities in Online Financial Transactions).
Cohen, USP Pub. No. 20230006844 (Dynamic Value Appended To Cookie Data For Fraud Detection And Step-Up Authentication)
Suchan, USP Pub. No. 20230273985 (Devices, Methods, And Graphical User Interfaces For Authorizing A Secure Operation)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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, Mathew Gart can be reached at 571 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019