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 action is in reply to the response filed on March 2, 2026.
Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, and 22 were amended.
Claims 27-30 were added.
Claim(s) 1-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has withdrawn the objection of claims 8 and 18 in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention is not directed to a method of organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees. Applicant asserted that the claim elements recite various operations that have no analogue in generic human-directed credit risk assessment, thereby supporting the argument that the claimed invention is not directed to a method of organizing human activity and patent eligible. However, this is not the basis of Examiner’s argument. Applicant’s assertion is more aligned with a finding that the claimed invention was directed towards a mental process, which is a finding Examiner did not make. Examiner found that the claimed invention was directed towards fundamental economic principles or practices (i.e. risk assessment), a subgroup of certain methods of organizing human activity. Whether the various operations have a generic human-directed analogue is immaterial in determining whether they are an example of fundamental economic principles or practices. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention improved the performance of prior art risk models. Examiner disagrees. The use of the computer as a tool increases efficiency. However, it does not make the abstract idea any less abstract. In addition, the improvement of the prior art models does not affect the abstract nature of the model itself. An improved upon abstract risk model is still abstract. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention recited a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. Examiner disagrees. The additional elements of Applicant’s claimed invention, 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 and are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitations are merely used as tools to implement the abstract idea. Applicant has improperly mischaracterized elements of the abstract as features of a practical application. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention is an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Examiner disagrees. The computer is merely used as a tool to implement Applicant’s claimed invention. The claimed invention does not improve upon the tool itself. The claimed invention also did not improve any technology or technical field because the claimed invention did not overcome any technological problems or limitations in its implementation. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention is similar to the following examples of improvements to systems that were found to be directed to patentable subject matter identified in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). Examiner disagrees. Examiner addresses the following examples referenced by Applicant:
Example (i): A modification of conventional internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage – Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to a modification of conventional internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically product a dual-source hybrid webpage. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Example (ii): Inventive distribution of functionality within a network to filter Internet content -- Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to the inventive distribution of functionality within a network to filter Internet content. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Example(iii): A method of rendering a haltone digital image -- Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to a method of rendering a haltone digital image. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Example (iv): A distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion -- Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to a distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Example (v): A memory system having programmable operational characteristics that are configurable based on the type of processor, which can be used with different types of processors without a tradeoff in processor performance -- Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to a memory system having programmable operational characteristics that are configurable based on the type of processor, which can be used with different types of processors without a tradeoff in processor performance. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Example (vi): Technical details as to how to transmit images over a cellular network or append classification information to digital image data -- Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to technical details as to how to transmit images over a cellular network or append classification information to digital image data. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Example (vii): Particular structure of a server that stores organized digital images -- Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to a particular structure of a server that stores organized digital images. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Example (viii): A particular way of programming or designing software to create menus -- Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to a particular way of programming or designing software to create menus. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Example (ix): A method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and “obfuscated code,” which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning -- Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to a method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and “obfuscated code,” which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Example (x): An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application -- Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Example (xi): Specific interface and implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers -- Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to specific interface and implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Example (xii): A specific method of restricting software operation within a license -- Applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to a specific method of restricting software operation within a license. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner disagrees. The claimed invention results in the generation of default probability scores, and the results of a mathematical computation is not an example of a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention did not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment because the additional elements were merely used as tools to implement the abstract idea. For these reasons, Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claims in the instant application recite an inventive concept under Step 2B. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention lacks an inventive concept because the additional limitations not considered a part of the abstract idea merely implement the abstract idea and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant asserted that the claimed invention is patent eligible because the pending claims recite limitations that are “not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field”. However, the additional limitations in Applicant’s claimed invention are recited at a high level of generality. The MPEP states, “If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility.” Applicant’s additional limitations lack the necessary specificity to recite anything that is “not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field”. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Examiner maintains the double patenting rejection of claim 1 for the reasons set forth below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,783,414. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 11,783,414 teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 in Application #18/457524 as follows:
Application #18457524 (claim 1)
U.S. Patent No. 11,783,414 (claim 1)
A system configured to use a trained neural network to computationally assess the credit quality of an entity based at least in part on analyzing unstructured text from documents related to the entity to determine relationships between words and phrases that are indicative of one or more future financial events and utilizing a document model and a company model, the system comprising:
A system configured to use a trained neural network to computationally assess the credit quality of an entity based at least in part on analyzing unstructured text from documents related to the entity to determine relationships between words and phrases that are indicative of one or more future financial events and utilizing a document model and a company model, the system comprising:
one or more servers comprising electronic storage, one or more physical processors, and computer program components comprising a document model component including the document model configured to analyze unstructured text from documents, and a company model component configured to utilize the company model to produce a sequence of default probability scores representing overall likelihoods of the occurrence of one or more financial events for an entity, the one or more physical computer processors configured by computer readable instructions to:
one or more servers comprising electronic storage, one or more physical processors, and computer program components comprising a document model component including the document model configured to analyze unstructured text from documents, and a company model component configured to utilize the company model to produce a sequence of default probability scores representing overall likelihoods of the occurrence of one or more financial events for an entity, the one or more physical computer processors configured by computer readable instructions to:
electronically obtain a set of documents related to a first entity from one or more document sources over a network, the set of documents comprising at least a first document containing unstructured text and a second document containing unstructured text;
electronically obtain a set of documents related to a first entity from one or more document sources over a network, the set of documents comprising at least a first document containing unstructured text and a second document containing unstructured text;
access the trained neural network comprising the document model and the company model;
access the trained neural network comprising the document model and the company model;
analyze, utilizing the document model, the unstructured text from at least the first and second documents of the set of documents by reading the unstructured text and understanding long range relationships between words, phrases, and the occurrence of one or more future financial events;
analyze, utilizing the document model, the unstructured text from at least the first and second documents of the set of documents by reading the unstructured text and understanding long range relationships between words, phrases, and the occurrence of one or more future financial events;
generate, utilizing the document model, document scores for at least the first and second documents of the set of documents based on the analyzed text, the document scores including a first document score for the first document of the set of documents and a second document score for the second document of the set of documents, wherein the first and second document scores each indicate a likelihood of an occurrence of one or more future financial events for the first entity based on the first and second document, respectively;
generate, utilizing the document model, document scores for at least the first and second documents of the set of documents based on the analyzed text, the document scores including a first document score for the first document of the set of documents and a second document score for the second document of the set of documents, wherein the first and second document scores each indicate a likelihood of an occurrence of one or more future financial events for the first entity based on the first and second document, respectively;
generate, utilizing the document model, document-representation vectors for at least the first and second documents of the set of documents based on the analyzed text, the document-representation vectors including a first document-representation vector comprising a word embedding representation of the first document of the set of documents and a second document-representation vector comprising a word embedding representation of the second document of the set of documents;
generate, utilizing the document model, document-representation vectors for at least the first and second documents of the set of documents based on the analyzed text, the document-representation vectors including a first document-representation vector comprising a word embedding representation of the first document of the set of documents and a second document-representation vector comprising a word embedding representation of the second document of the set of documents;
aggregate the first and second document scores and the first and second document-representation vectors;
aggregate the first and second document scores and the first and second document-representation vectors;
create, using the aggregated first and second document scores and first and second document-representation vectors, a document-model-state vector representing relationships identified within individual documents of the set of documents and across the set of documents;
create, using the aggregated first and second document scores and first and second document-representation vectors, a document-model-state vector representing relationships identified within individual documents of the set of documents and across the set of documents;
produce, utilizing the company model, a sequence of default probability scores representing overall likelihoods of the occurrence of one or more future financial events based on the document-model-state vector for the set of documents related to the first entity.
produce, utilizing the company model, a sequence of default probability scores representing overall likelihoods of the occurrence of one or more future financial events based on the document-model-state vector for the set of documents related to the first entity;
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) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-30 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 system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 11. Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
electronically obtain a set of documents related to a first entity from one or more document sources [over a network], the set of documents comprising at least a first document containing unstructured text and a second document containing unstructured text;
access the [trained neural network] comprising the document model and the company model;
analyze, [utilizing the document model], the unstructured text from at least the first and second documents of the set of documents by reading the unstructured text and understanding long range relationships between words, phrases, and the occurrence of one or more future financial events;
generate, [utilizing the document model], document scores for at least the first and second documents of the set of documents based on the analyzed text, the document scores including a first document score for the first document of the set of documents and a second document score for the second document of the set of documents, wherein the first and second document scores each indicate a likelihood of an occurrence of one or more future financial events for the first entity based on the first and second document, respectively;
generate, [utilizing the document model,] document-representation vectors for at least the first and second documents of the set of documents based on the analyzed text, the document-representation vectors including a first document-representation vector comprising a word embedding representation of the first document of the set of documents and a second document-representation vector comprising a word embedding representation of the second document of the set of documents;
aggregate the first and second document scores and the first and second document-representation vectors;
create, using the aggregated first and second document scores and first and second document-representation vectors, a document-model-state vector representing relationships identified within individual documents of the set of documents and across the set of documents;
produce, [utilizing the company model], a sequence of default probability scores representing overall likelihoods of the occurrence of one or more future financial events based on the document-model-state vector for the set of documents related to the first entity.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic principle or practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The one or more servers comprising electronic storage, one or more physical processors, and computer program components comprising a document model component including the document model, and company model in Claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 11 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of one or more servers comprising electronic storage, one or more physical processors, and computer program components comprising a document model component including the document model, and a company model. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to 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 and are recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 1 and 11 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 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1 and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 8 and 18 further define the document model that is present in independent claims 1 and 11, respectively. The additional limitations that describe an input layer that receives at least the first and second documents of the set of documents; an embedding layer creating at least the first and second document-representation vectors; batch normalization that aggregates at least the first and second document-representation vectors; and a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) layer that generates the document-model-state vector, comprising a sequential network through which the aggregated document vectors are passed further describe the document model and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or otherwise integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 8 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 9 and 19 further define the document mode that is present in independent claims 1 and 11, respectively. The additional limitations that describe the document model as comprising a deep-learning model with memory that reads the text from at least the first and second documents of the set of documents, understands long range relationships between words, phrases, and the occurrence of the one or more future financial events, and creates at least the first and second document scores do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or otherwise integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 9 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7,10, 12-17, and 20-30 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and 11 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2-7,10, 12-17, and 20-30 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, dependent claims 2-7,10, 12-17, and 20-30 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 1-30 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Zhao (2018/0253657) discloses a real-time credit risk management system.
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 JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 pm - 8:00 pm.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
May 13, 2026
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights