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
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on January 26, 2026 for the patent application 18/454,382 originally filed on August 23, 2023. Claims 1, 7, 9 and 14 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. The first office action of October 27, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a system” (i.e. “a machine”), claim 7 is directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), and claim 14 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “generating targeted anti-scam education/feedback,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“apply… vectorized representations of demographic information and account information associated with a user to generate a risk profile of the user;
map the risk profile to at least one threat, out of a plurality of possible threats, likely to be targeted to the user;
transmit…an indication of the at least one threat;
receive…an indication of a news story associated with a scam;
determine, based on the risk profile, a likelihood that the user will be impacted by the scam; and
transmit…an indication of the likelihood.”
Per claim 7:
“receiving demographic information and account information associated with a user;
generating a risk profile based on applying …vectorized representations of the demographic information and the account information;
mapping the risk profile to at least one threat, out of a plurality of possible threats indicated in a data structure, likely to be targeted to the user; and
transmitting…an educational message that is associated with the at least one threat and that is indicated in the data structure.”
Per claim 14:
“receive demographic information and account information associated with a user;
generate a risk profile based on applying …vectorized representations of the demographic information and the account information;
receive…an indication of a news story associated with a scam;
determine, based on the risk profile, a likelihood that the user will be impacted by the scam; and
transmit…an indication of the likelihood.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “one or more memories,” “one or more processors,” and “a user device,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “generating targeted anti-scam education/feedback,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “one or more memories,” “one or more processors,” and “a user device,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “one or more memories,” as described in paras. [0072], [0080] and [0082] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0072] The computing hardware 403 may include hardware and corresponding resources from one or more computing devices. For example, computing hardware 403 may include hardware from a single computing device (e.g., a single server) or from multiple computing devices (e.g., multiple servers), such as multiple computing devices in one or more data centers. As shown, computing hardware 403 may include one or more processors 407, one or more memories 408, and/or one or more networking components 409. Examples of a processor, a memory, and a networking component (e.g., a communication component) are described elsewhere herein.”
“[0080] FIG. 5 is a diagram of example components of a device 500 associated with targeted anti-scam education and feedback. The device 500 may correspond to an account provider 430 and/or a user device 440. In some implementations, the account provider 430 and/or the user device 440 may include one or more devices 500 and/or one or more components of the device 500. As shown in FIG. 5, the device 500 may include a bus 510, a processor 520, a memory 530, an input component 540, an output component 550, and/or a communication component 560.”
“[0082] The memory 530 may include volatile and/or nonvolatile memory. For example, the memory 530 may include random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), a hard disk drive, and/or another type of memory (e.g., a flash memory, a magnetic memory, and/or an optical memory). The memory 530 may include internal memory (e.g., RAM, ROM, or a hard disk drive) and/or removable memory (e.g., removable via a universal serial bus connection). The memory 530 may be a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The memory 530 may store information, one or more instructions, and/or software (e.g., one or more software applications) related to the operation of the device 500. In some implementations, the memory 530 may include one or more memories that are coupled (e.g., communicatively coupled) to one or more processors (e.g., processor 520), such as via the bus 510. Communicative coupling between a processor 520 and a memory 530 may enable the processor 520 to read and/or process information stored in the memory 530 and/or to store information in the memory 530.”
This broadly describes a generic computer component that is commonly provided in commercially available computers.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “on or more processors,” as described in paras. [0072], [0080] and [0081] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0072] The computing hardware 403 may include hardware and corresponding resources from one or more computing devices. For example, computing hardware 403 may include hardware from a single computing device (e.g., a single server) or from multiple computing devices (e.g., multiple servers), such as multiple computing devices in one or more data centers. As shown, computing hardware 403 may include one or more processors 407, one or more memories 408, and/or one or more networking components 409. Examples of a processor, a memory, and a networking component (e.g., a communication component) are described elsewhere herein.”
“[0080] FIG. 5 is a diagram of example components of a device 500 associated with targeted anti-scam education and feedback. The device 500 may correspond to an account provider 430 and/or a user device 440. In some implementations, the account provider 430 and/or the user device 440 may include one or more devices 500 and/or one or more components of the device 500. As shown in FIG. 5, the device 500 may include a bus 510, a processor 520, a memory 530, an input component 540, an output component 550, and/or a communication component 560.”
“[0081] The bus 510 may include one or more components that enable wired and/or wireless communication among the components of the device 500. The bus 510 may couple together two or more components of FIG. 5, such as via operative coupling, communicative coupling, electronic coupling, and/or electric coupling. For example, the bus 510 may include an electrical connection (e.g., a wire, a trace, and/or a lead) and/or a wireless bus. The processor 520 may include a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit, a microprocessor, a controller, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor, a field-programmable gate array, an application-specific integrated circuit, and/or another type of processing component. The processor 520 may be implemented in hardware, firmware, or a combination of hardware and software. In some implementations, the processor 520 may include one or more processors capable of being programmed to perform one or more operations or processes described elsewhere herein.”
As such, the Applicant’s “one or more processors,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a user device,” as described in para. [0078] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0078] The user device 440 may include one or more devices capable of receiving, generating, storing, processing, and/or providing information associated with supplemental information and/or news story indications, as described elsewhere herein. The user device 440 may include a communication device and/or a computing device. For example, the user device 440 may include a wireless communication device, a mobile phone, a user equipment, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a desktop computer, a gaming console, a set-top box, a wearable communication device (e.g., a smart wristwatch, a pair of smart eyeglasses, a head mounted display, or a virtual reality headset), or a similar type of device. The user device 440 may communicate with one or more other devices of environment 400, as described elsewhere herein.”
As such, the Applicant’s “a user device,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional computing device commercially available today.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 7 or 14. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on January 26, 2026 related to claims 1-20 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Even assuming the claims can reasonably be determined to recite an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A, which Applicant does not concede is the case for this application, Applicant respectfully asserts that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, representative claim 1 as a whole integrates into a practical application because it is directed to improvements in the technical field of computer attacks. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the specification state that "[s]uccessful scams, such as phishing attacks or debt collection scams, can result in significant downtime (e.g., by enabling a denial-of-service (DoS) attack). Additionally, or alternatively, remediation of successful scams consumes significant power and processing resources in order to undo actions performed by the attacker" and "some implementations described herein enable targeted anti-scam feedback to users. For example, the users may provide news articles about ongoing scams and receive indications of how likely the users are to be targets (e.g., based on risk profiles of the users). As a result, the users are more likely to stay alert, and chances of successful scams are reduced, which conserves power and processing resources that would otherwise be expended on remediating the successful scams" (emphasis added).
Thus, the specification explicitly discusses a technical solution that conserves power and processing resources that would otherwise be expended on remediating successful scams. And, the claims themselves reflect the disclosed improvement.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. It is also worth noting, the statement regarding “a technical solution that conserves power and processing resources that would otherwise be expended on remediating successful scams,” is conclusory. Neither the Applicant’s statement, nor the written description of the specification as originally filed, provides any substantial technical evidence that any form of efficiency is achieved. At best, the statement is trying to convey an anecdotal notion that training someone to not make mistakes is a good thing. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Therefore, the above features of representative claim 1, as amended, provide an improvement to a technology or technical field. Independent claims 7 and 14, as amended, recite similar features. Thus, claims 1, 7, and 14, and the claims that depend thereon, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons previously discussed here and above in the office action. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See 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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715