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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application per claim amendments and remarks filed on 12/31/2025, wherein Claims 1, 5-6, 9-11, 15-16 and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 1 and 11 are independent method and system claims, with claims 2-10 and 12-20 dependent on respective independent claims.
This Office Action is a Final Rejection in response to the claim amendments and the remarks filed by the Applicant on 31 DECEMBER 2025 for its original application of 12 FEBRUARY 2024 that is titled: “Computer-based Systems Configured for Automated Activity Verification based on Optical Character Recognition Models and Methods of Use Thereof”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 1-20 are now being rejected herein.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 12/31/2025 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown, or may not be underlined when stricken through. Underlined amendments to the claims that are shown below are from previously submitted claim amendments by the Applicant.)
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1 and 11 are independent method and system claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
Representative claims 1 and 11: The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of: receiving physical document information associated with a physical document that corresponds to at least one activity between first user and at least one second user; wherein the physical document information comprises at least one activity attribute representing the at least one activity, the at least one activity attribute comprising at least one user-defined value; obtaining for each electronic record of a plurality of electronic records associated with the first user, at least one electronic record attribute of each electronic record; inputting the at least one activity attribute and the at least one electronic record attribute to generate a prediction that identifies a particular electronic record as matching to the physical document; wherein the particular electronic record corresponds to the at least one activity; …determine, real-time, at least one fraud indication associated with the at least one electronic record attribute of the particular electronic record; determining a difference between the at least one activity attribute and the at least one electronic record attribute of the particular electronic record; and triggering at least one action associated with fraud mitigation for the at least one activity of the physical document based at least in part on the at least one fraud indication and the at least one user-defined value, wherein the at least one action comprises, prior to posting of the at least one activity, automatically generating a hold on the at least one activity to pre-empt fraudulent posting (claims 1 and 11), which, in response to the at least one fraud indication, changes a processing state of the at least one activity from pending to held and preventing posting or execution of the at least one activity unless and until the hold is released. These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices of mitigating risk to determine a difference or inconsistencies between a physical record and the corresponding electronic record in aid of determining fraud and preventing it. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: at least one processor; and wherein the resolution machine learning model is configured to: ingest the at least one activity attribute comprising at least one user-defined value, ingest the at least one electronic record attribute, and the resolution machine learning model; applying, by the at least one processor, a fraud detection machine learning model… electronic record; and an activity processing system. The devices, mobile devices, machine learning model, records etc. in these steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of collecting (ingesting data), processing data, storing data in electronic records etc. These generic processors, device and machine learning elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The elements (for example machine learning model) are being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. There is no improvement to the machines, processors or machine learning models themselves. Rather the machine learning models are applied at a high level of generality. 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. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements of: at least one processor; and wherein the resolution machine learning model is configured to: ingest the at least one activity attribute comprising at least one user-defined value, ingest the at least one electronic record attribute, and measure a similarity between the at least one activity attribute and the at least one electronic record attribute by applying a plurality of trained resolution parameters of the resolution machine learning model; and applying, by the at least one processor, a fraud detection machine learning model, trained on historical pairs of physical-document attributes and electronic-record attributes, to a respective feature vector representative of a respective pairing of each of the at least one activity attribute and the at least one electronic record attribute to determine, real-time, at least one fraud indication associated with the at least one electronic record attribute of the particular electronic record; and an activity processing system, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these processor/s (device/s) and machine learning model are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, paras [0039]-[0040] and [0058] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe ---
{“[0039] In some embodiments, the resolution engine 240 may utilize the feature vectors or feature maps form the record image 104 and each of the electronic records 106 to match the physical record of an activity to an electronic record 106 for that activity using a machine learning model. In some embodiments, the machine learning model can be used to formulate a prediction for a matching activity represented by a corresponding electronic record 106 that matches the activity data of the physical record based at least on the activity data feature vector or map from the record image 104 and each of the electronic record 106 feature vectors or maps. In some embodiments, the prediction can include a probability score of a match between the record image 104 and each electronic record 106, such that the resolution engine 240 may select the highest probability match as the predicted match for corresponding records of the activity. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
[0040] In some embodiments, an activity discrepancy model 250 may receive the matching records, including, e.g., the activity data form the record image 104 and the data from the matching electronic record 106, and determine any discrepancy in how the activity is recorded. For example, where the activity is a financial transaction, the activity discrepancy model 250 may compare the transaction amount data represented in each of the record image 104 and the matching electronic record 106 to determine if both records include the same transaction amount. However, discrepancies in recordation of other activities may be analyzed, such as, e.g., document filings, identity management and security, or other activities where an aspect of a physical document may be used to verify an electronic record (e.g., proof of identity or proof of action). ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
[0058] In some embodiments, the entity resolution model 442 may utilize the electronic record 106 entity feature vectors and the physical record parties 327 feature vector to resolve entity matches. In some embodiments, the entity resolution model 442 utilizes a machine learning model to compare the electronic record 106 entity feature vectors and the physical record parties 327 feature vector to generate a probability of a match. Thus, in some embodiments, the entity resolution model 442 utilizes, e.g., a classifier to classify entities and matches based on a probability. In some embodiments, the classifier may include, e.g., random forest, gradient boosted machines, neural networks including convolutional neural network (CNN), among others and combinations thereof. Indeed, in some embodiments, a gradient boosted machine of an ensemble of trees is utilized. Such models may capture a non-linear relationship between transactions and merchants, thus providing accurate predictions of matches. In some embodiments, the classifier may be configured to classify a match where the probability of a match exceeds a probability of, e.g., 90%, 95%, 97%, 99% or other suitable probability based on the respective data entity feature vectors. In some embodiments, each electronic record 106 matching to the physical record parties 327 may be represented in, e.g., a table, list, or other entity resolution data structure. For example, the entity resolution model 442 may produce a list having each entity matching electronic record 106.”} ---
and indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent system Claim 11, which perform the steps similar to those of independent method Claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 2-10, further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., wherein the physical document comprises a financial document; wherein the plurality of electronic records comprise user account records comprising the at least one attribute representing financial documents associated with the first user; modifying, by the at least one processor, a user account to approve the at least one activity with respect to the user account based on an electronic authorization; generating, by the at least one processor, a hold on the at least one activity prior to a posting of the at least one activity responsive to the difference; generating, by the at least one processor, in a fraudulent authorization log, a fraud record of the difference between a payment amount associated with the physical document and a respective payment authorization associated with the particular electronic record; wherein the fraudulent authorization log comprises at least one fraud record associated with an account associated with the first user; determining, by the at least one processor, a number of fraud records in the fraudulent authorization log; and generating, by the at least one processor, an account hold preventing activities from an account associated with the first user upon the number of fraud records exceeding a threshold; causing to display, by the at least one processor, an alert on a screen of at least one computing device associated with the first user indicative of the difference; instructing, by the at least one processor, at least one computer network to execute the at least one activity based at least in part on the electronic authorization; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1. Similarly dependent system Claims 12-20 also further narrow their independent Claim 11, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and claim amendments dated 31 DECEMBER 2025 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not put these amended claims in a condition ready for Allowance. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-20, as described above, is being maintained under 35 USC §101 herein with some modifications in this Office Action, where needed to provide clarification in response to the Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments of 12/31/2025 traversing the 101 rejection, Examiner notes that although the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Furthermore, tests for whether an element is conventional under Step 2B only applies to the additional elements recited and not to the abstract idea present within the claims. Even with the latest claim amendments of 12/31/2025, the instant application’s Claim 1 is broader than allowed Claim 1 of parent application 16/867110, as shown in attached comparison table in Appendix.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments of 12/31/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument stating – {The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").}. In response, Examiner notes that to evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), examples of claims that improve technology and are not directed to a judicial exception include: Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,822 F.3d 1327, 1339, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1691-92 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to a self-referential table for a computer database were directed to an improvement in computer capabilities and not directed to an abstract idea); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology and not directed to an abstract idea); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253,1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims to an enhanced computer memory system were directed to an improvement in computer capabilities and not an abstract idea); Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 125 USPQ2d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims to virus scanning were found to be an improvement in computer technology and not directed to an abstract idea); SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets were found to be an improvement in computer network technology and not directed to an abstract idea). Additional examples are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). Additionally, the Applicant’s citation of Enfish vs Microsoft in middle of page 12 are moot, because this case has already been cited above in Examples per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) that this court case overcame 101 rejection based on its “(claims to a self-referential table for a computer database were directed to an improvement in computer capabilities and not directed to an abstract idea)”.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments of 12/31/2025 against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s statement – “each of the listed limitations is unrelated to any enumerated sub-groupings of the certain methods of organizing human activity at least because the claim language is directed towards machine learning-based security on an electronic communication”. Also, upon reviewing the Specification and the claim as whole, independent Claim 1 (exemplary) is at least directed to one of the ineligible “certain methods of organizing human activity” that include “fundamental economic principles or practices” (based on at least claimed ‘a physical document that corresponds to at least one activity between first user and at least one second user’) and “commercial or legal interactions” (based on at least claimed ‘at least one activity between first user and at least one second user’) as well as “managing personal behavior or relationships” (based on at least ‘the physical document information comprises at least one activity attribute representing the at least one activity’). Claim 1 is part of the present disclosure that generally relates to computer-based systems configured for automated activity verification, including automated comparisons of physical records with digital records to identify discrepancies (see para [0002], Field of Technology). Thus, like the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, and the concept of hedging in Bilski, the concept of “determining, by the at least one processor, a difference between the at least one activity attribute and the at least one electronic record attribute of the particular electronic record; and triggering, by the at least one processor, at least one action associated with an execution of the at least one activity of the physical document based at least in part on the difference” recited in exemplary independent Claim 1 “is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Thus, it is clear that exemplary independent Claim 1 recites fundamental economic practices and/or commercial transactions and/or managing personal relationships or interactions that, under the Revised Guidance, fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, independent Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
In further response to Applicant’s arguments against the rejection under 35 USC 101 about “Step 2A, Prong 2”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner incorporates para 12 above. Also, Examiner further references google search for: “when was system to identify card fraudulent transactions before posting was created?” attached herewith as Appendix that these technologies have been known since early 2000s and beyond, and now include FICO platform and Visa Advanced Authorization (VAA), which are “Examples of modern pre-posting systems”.
The elements (for example machine learning model) are being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. There is no improvement to the machines, processors or machine learning models themselves. Rather the machine learning models are applied at a high level of generality.
NOTE: Examiner notes that the previous Responses to Arguments from more than one last Office Action/s are incorporated herein as described below, some of which may be similar to and repeated as RCE arguments on 0916/2025, for example but not limited to, prong one and prong two, etc.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the instant application is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/ computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea. A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Applicant. However, examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency/accuracy inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).) Claiming improved data processing efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere 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).
The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions. The processor is a general-purpose processor that performs general-purpose functions. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions. Accordingly, claims are ineligible.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory
subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See at least 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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the
Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691