DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claims 1, 11 and 20. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 were canceled prior to previous office action. Thus, claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 remain pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 22 January 2026 with respect to
rejections of claims 1, 11 and 20 under U.S.C. § 112(a),
rejections of claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 under U.S.C. § 112(b),
rejection to claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 under U.S.C. § 101,
rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, 14, 15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (US Pub. No. 20200167863 A1) in view of Allen et al (US Pub. No. 20100010930 A1), in further view of Harris et al (US Pub. No. 20130231974 A1), and
rejections of claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew in view of Allen, in further view of Harris, in further view of Kolls (US Patent No. 11,037,160 B1)
have been fully considered. Amendments to claims have been entered.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to, and arguments regarding, claims to overcome and 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and § 112(b) rejections, and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections and, in turn, withdraws rejections. However, Examiner has cited new 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections in view of amended claim language.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to, and arguments regarding claims to overcome 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. However, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility under Step 2A – Prong One contending that the claims “are not reasonably characterized as reciting a mental process” [remarks page 13]. Examiner agrees in that Examiner maintains that the claim are directed to a fundamental business practice of mitigating risk as well as a method of organizing human activity as conveyed in the revised 101 rejections recited herein.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility contending that the claims would integrated any such “idea” into a practical application under of Step 2A - Prong Two citing USPTO Example 40 and the July 2024AISME example [remarks page 13]. Applicant makes similar arguments regarding Step 2B analysis contending that the claims reflect “a non-conventional and non-routine arrangement of computing components that produces a technical improvement”, the technical improvement vis-a-vie “the ordered combination of machine learning training, clustering, monitoring, reassignment, and dynamic updating operations” [remarks page 14]. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In view of Example 40 cited by the Applicant, Examiner notes that Example 40 is not relevant to Applicant’s claim in as much as Example 40 describes traffic data through a network appliance, which is not the same as performing data manipulation recited in the Applicant’s claims.
As with determining a practical application to an abstract idea – Step 2A- Prong Two, types of limitations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) – subject matter eligibility under Step 2B - include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b),
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c),
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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Further, limitations also indicative of an inventive concept include:
Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention does not contain any of these “types” of aforementioned limitations.
Limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f),
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g),
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h),
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo.
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention merely appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Such functions include training a machine learning model and using a clustering algorithm, and are not specific as to what functions are being performed. As such, the claims do not convey anything beyond well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Rejections have been clarified herein in view of the claim amendments and the current MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Requirements.
If, in the opinion of the Applicant, a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the subject application, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the undersigned Examiner at the phone number listed below.
Priority
This application filed 27 September 2023 is a continuation of 16/158,127, filed 11 October 2018 and is now US Patent No. 11,823,258. Application 16/158,127 claims priority from provisional application 62/571,239 filed 11 October 2017. According, this application is given priority from 11 October 2017.
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.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, the representative limitation:
train a machine learning model using the aggregated transaction data for each user of the plurality of users, wherein training comprises generating a multi- dimensional behavioral feature space representing spending behavior over time across merchant categories;
recites the term “a multi- dimensional behavioral feature space”. Examiner finds no evidence of “a multi- dimensional behavioral feature space” in the Applicant's specification. Examiner has reviewed [0011] [0151]-[0154] and [0157] as indicted in the response to Applicant’s office action as well as the remainder of Applicant's specification. Perhaps the “multi- dimensional behavioral feature space” is related to “the user’s aggregated transaction data based on various characteristics of the merchants” recited in [0153]. But his is not clearly evident.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should identify where in the specification the aggregate credit metric is disclosed, or otherwise, cancel such matter from the claims.
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, 4-11 and 14-20 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.
In the instant case, claims 1, 4-10 and 20 are directed to “an apparatus” which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining a credit metric which is grouped under a fundamental business practice of mitigating risk as well as a method of organizing human activity.
in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-10.2019]). Claims recite:
receive aggregated transaction data for a user of a plurality of users from a plurality of third-party data sources, wherein each of the plurality of users has accounts at each of the plurality of third parties;
generating a multi- dimensional behavioral feature space representing spending behavior over time across merchant categories;
generate a predicted credit metric for the user based on the aggregated transaction data, wherein the predicted credit metric describes a credit worthiness of the user;
assign the user to a group of a plurality of users based on trends in the user's aggregated transaction data, wherein the trends comprise detected temporal transitions in spending behavior between grouped merchant categories that are identified by the machine learning model;
determine a group-level trend metric for the group to which the user is assigned, the group-level trend metric being computed from aggregated behavioral state data of the users in the group;
determine a credit metric for the user based on the predicted credit metric and the group-level trend metric, wherein the group-level trend metric modifies the predicted credit metric in response to detected changes in collective behavioral states of the group;
monitor for changes in trend behavior of the group as reflected in subsequently received transaction data;
automatically reassign the user to a different group or update the group-level trend metric in response to the detected changes;
dynamically update the credit metric for the user based on the reassignment or updated group-level trend metric; and
provide the determined credit metric to one or more third parties.
Limitations such as:
the aggregated transaction data comprising machine-readable merchant category identifiers, transaction timestamps, and transaction amounts obtained from distributed data sources
are merely a description of data and do not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-10.2019]).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application [R-07.2022]), the additional elements of the claim such as:
at least one memory,
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory,
train a machine learning model using the aggregated transaction data for each user of the plurality of users,
using the trained machine learning model, and
using a clustering algorithm based on the machine learning model
represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than applying a computerized apparatus to the method steps corresponding to automating the acts of “collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis”.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022]), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
The computer and computer program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities. Such functions including training a machine learning model and using a clustering algorithm which are described at a high degree of generality and, as such, do not convey anything beyond well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of determining a credit metric using computer technology (e.g. the processor).
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4-10 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong One). Nor are the claims directed to a practical application to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong Two).
For example, claims 4-10 are silent as to “additional elements” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of a judicial exception, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. They merely further describe the abstract idea of determining a credit metric.
Accordingly, none of the dependent claims add a technological solution to the fundamental business practice of mitigating risk or the method of organizing human activity >> in the independent claim.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claims 11 and 14-19 otherwise styled as a method would be subject to the same analysis.
Conclusion
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Additional Comments
Regarding claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20, in view of pending rejections, the Examiner is unable to locate prior art references that anticipate the claimed invention or renders it obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Falkenborg et al: “Systems And Methods To Predict Potential Attrition Of Consumer Payment Account”, (US Pub. No. 20110313900 A1}:
[0316] In one example, hundreds or thousands of transaction records (301) of a cardholder are converted into hundreds or thousands of variable values (321) for various merchant categories, which are summarized (335) via the factor definitions (331) and cluster definitions (333) into twelve factor values (344) and one or two cluster IDs (e.g., 343). The summarized data can be readily interpreted by a human to ascertain the spending behavior of the cardholder. A user (101) may easily specify a spending behavior requirement formulated based on the factor values (344) and the cluster IDs (e.g., to query for a segment of customers, or to request the targeting of a segment of customers). The reduced size of the summarized data reduces the need for data communication bandwidth for communicating the spending behavior of the cardholder over a network connection and allows simplified processing and utilization of the data representing the spending behavior of the cardholder.
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 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 EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F.
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 Applicant wishes to correspond to the Examiner via email, Applicant needs to file an AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT APPLICATION form. The form may be downloaded at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights