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
This Non-Final office action is in response to the application filed on January 31, 2024, the amendments to the claims filed on October 30, 2025, and the Request for Continued Examination filed on February 11, 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 11, 2026 has been entered.
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 9-20 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. The recitation, “in response to the risk score exceeding a predetermined threshold, automatically transmit a pause instruction to a transaction processing system, append-only transaction ledger within a sub-second latency to pause processing of the transaction until the disposition is determined” in lines 13-16 of claim 9, similarly recited in claim 13, is not supported by the specification. The specification is silent as to there being any “append-only transaction ledger” or “sub-second latency”. Claims 10-12 and 14-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 13 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 9. Claim 13 recites the limitations of executing a trained machine-learning risk-scoring engine that extracts numerical features from user profile data and transaction data of a transaction associated with a user, and generates a risk score indicating a likelihood that the transaction is potentially fraudulent; determining a trusted validation agent for the transaction using the user profile data; generating remediation instructions for the trusted validation agent using transaction data of the transaction; transmitting the remediation instructions to the trusted validation agent; determining a disposition for the transaction based on input received from the trusted validation agent; in response to the risk score exceeding a predetermined threshold, automatically transmitting a pause instruction to a transaction processing system, append-only transaction ledger within a sub-second latency to pause processing of the transaction until the disposition is determined; and transmitting transaction handling instructions to the transaction processing system to alter processing of the transaction by continuing processing of the transaction if the disposition indicates the transaction is not fraudulent.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Instructions for altering the processing of the transaction recites commercials or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The at least one processor, memory, and transaction processing system in Claim 1 and transaction processing system in Claims 9 and 13 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The trained machine-learning risk-scoring engine and trusted validation agent in Claims 1, 9, and 13 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 9 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite at least one processor, memory, and transaction processing system in Claim 1 and transaction processing system in Claims 9 and 13 and the trained machine-learning risk-scoring engine and trusted validation agent in Claims 1, 9, and 13. The computer hardware is 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 component. 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. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 13 are 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0042, 0048] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. In addition, performing the judicial exception steps using ML merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2105(h).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. Thus claims 1, 9, and 13 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 9, and 13 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2, 10, and 14 further include training a triggering transaction prediction model; Claims 3, 12, and 15 further define selection of the trusted validation agent; Claim 4 and 16 further define the remediation instructions; Claims 5-7 and 17-19 further define the disposition, alteration, and transaction handling instructions; Claims 8 and 20 further define the trusted validation agent as a chatbot. 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 claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub. 2023/0043793 (Shankar et al. ‘793) in view of U.S. PGPub. 2016/0351022 (Ghafoor ‘022).
Re Claim 1: Shankar et al. ‘793 disclose a system for a trusted validation agent platform comprising: at least one processor; and memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations to: execute a machine-learning risk-scoring engine that extracts numerical features from user profile data and transaction data of a transaction associated with a user, and generates a risk score indicating a likelihood that the transaction is potentially fraudulent (paragraphs [0045-0046]); determine a trusted validation agent for the transaction using the user profile data (Figures 1, 6); generate remediation instructions for the trusted validation agent using transaction data of the transaction (Figures 6, 7; paragraphs [0081, 0082]); transmit the remediation instructions to the trusted validation agent (Figures 6, 7; paragraphs [0081, 0082]); determine a disposition for the transaction based on input received from the trusted validation agent (Figures 6, 7; paragraphs [0081, 0082]).
Shankar et al. ‘793 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including communicating user behavior anomalies to a risk mitigation system. However, Shankar et al. ‘793 does not disclose including in response to the risk score exceeding a predetermined threshold, automatically transmit a pause instruction to a transaction processing system to pause processing of the transaction unit the disposition is determined and transmit transaction handling instructions to a transaction processing system based on the disposition, wherein the transaction handling instructions cause the transaction processing system to alter processing of the transaction by continuing processing of the transaction if the disposition indicates the transaction is not fraudulent. Ghafoor ‘022 discloses transmitting transaction handling instructions to a processing system that cause the system to alter the processing of the transaction by continuing processing of the transaction if the disposition indicates the transaction is not fraudulent (Figure 2; paragraphs [0030, 0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the system of Shankar et al. ‘793, in view of the teachings of Ghafoor ‘022, to include altering, halting, or continuing the transaction in the risk mitigation system for the basic reason of combining known elements to yield the predictable result of preventing potentially fraudulent transactions.
Re Claim 2: Shanker et al. ‘793 in view of Ghafoor ‘022 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including the memory further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations to: train a triggering transaction prediction model by extracting features from historical client data and historical transaction data that includes fraudulent transactions; evaluate profile data and transaction data of the user using the triggering transaction prediction model to generate a list of transaction types likely to trigger a trusted validation agent session; present the list to the user in a user interface including user interface elements for selection of one or more transaction types; and update the user profile data based on activation of one or more of the user interface elements, wherein the transaction is determined to be potentially fraudulent as being associated with one or more transaction types stored in the user profile data (Shanker et al. ‘793: abstract; Figures 1, 6, 7; paragraphs [0076, 0083-0086]).
Re Claim 3: Shanker et al. ‘793 in view of Ghafoor ‘022 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including the instructions to determine the trusted validation agent further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations to: select the trusted validation agent from a list of trusted validation agents stored in the user profile data in part based on attributes of the transaction (Shanker et al. ‘793: paragraphs [0043-0050]).
Re Claim 4: Shanker et al. ‘793 in view of Ghafoor ‘022 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that the remediation instructions include a script generated based on the transaction data and a fraud type associated with the transaction (Ghafoor ‘022: paragraphs [0029-0031]).
Re Claim 5: Shanker et al. ‘793 in view of Ghafoor ‘022 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that the disposition indicates the transaction is fraudulent and the transaction handling instructions cancel processing of the transaction based on user preferences in the user profile data (Ghafoor ‘022: paragraphs [0029-0031]).
Re Claim 6: Shanker et al. ‘793 in view of Ghafoor ‘022 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that the disposition indicates the transaction is fraudulent and the transaction handling instructions pause processing of the transaction based on user preferences in the user profile data (Ghafoor ‘022: paragraphs [0029-0031]).
Re Claim 7: Shanker et al. ‘793 in view of Ghafoor ‘022 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that alteration of the processing of the transaction is a delay, wherein the disposition indicates the transaction is not fraudulent, and the transaction handling instructions continue processing of the transaction by ending the delay (Ghafoor ‘022: paragraphs [0029-0031]).
Re Claim 8: Shanker et al. ‘793 in view of Ghafoor ‘022 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that the trusted validation agent is a chatbot and the memory further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations to: query a large language model with the remediation instructions; receive a list of questions to be presented to the user to be used in determining if the transaction is fraudulent; transmit the list of questions to the user; receive input from the user in response to transmission of the list of questions; and transmit the input to the large language model, wherein the disposition is determined using output received from the large language model (Shanker et al. ‘793: paragraphs [0016, 0069]; Figure 6).
Re Claims 9-20: The amendments to the claims fail to remove all of the subject matter that are not found to have support within the instant specification, see the 35 USC 112a rejection as advanced above. Therefore, removal of those amendments may result in the 35 USC 103 rejection being reinstated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 10-13) are acknowledged, however they are not fully persuasive. The amendments to claim 9 and 13 fail to remove all of the subject matter that are not found to have support within the instant specification, see the 35 USC 112a rejection as advanced above. Therefore, that rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
3/5/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619