Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final office action is in response to the application filed on February 27, 2024, the amendments to the claims filed on November 18, 2025, and the Request for Continued Examination filed on June 11, 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 11, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, 23, and 24 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent product Claim 12 and system Claim 18. Claim 1 recites the limitations of receiving, by a risk insights system, from an inquiring entity, an inquiry associated with a transaction by a subject entity, wherein the transaction is associated with a risk score, wherein the subject entity interacts with an application of the inquiring entity; utilizing, by the risk insight system, a large language model in communication with the risk insights system to process the inquiry associated with the transaction by the subject entity to determine an intent of the inquiry; executing, by the risk insights system, a workflow mapped to the intent, the workflow specifying one or more databases from which to retrieve data associated with the transaction, wherein the workflow excludes retrieval of confidential or restricted data; providing, by the risk insights system, the transaction data associated with the transaction to the large language model, wherein the large language model is configured to generate, for the enquiring entity, an explanation based on the transaction data associated with the transaction, the explanation being formatted as a response to the inquiry; and outputting, by the risk insights system, the response to the inquiring entity.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Providing risk insights recites a fundamental economic practice (mitigating risk). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice (mitigating risk), then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The risk insights system in Claims 1, 12, and 18 and the processor of Claim 18 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The large language model in Claims 1, 12, and 18 appears to be just software. Claims 12 and 18 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite risk insights system in Claims 1, 12, and 18 and the processor of Claim 18 and the large language model in Claims 1, 12, and 18. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0122-0129] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 12, and 18 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 24 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 12, and 18 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2-3, 13, 14, 23, & 24 further detail the large language model without adding significantly more to the abstract idea; Claims 5, 16, and 17 further determine of or more factors contributing to the risk score; Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 further define that the inquiry identifies a time range; Claims 10 and 11 further include identifying information about the subject entity. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 24 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, 23, and 24 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 8-14) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicants argue that the claims are not a method of organizing human activity (Remarks, pages 8-10). However, the claims clearly set forth that they are analyzing transaction data to determine risk insights and presenting the results of that analysis which is a fundamental economic practice, risk mitigation. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Bascom, (Remarks, pages 10-11), are not found persuasive. In Bascom, the court held that the inventive concept consisted of installing a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. However, the current claims to do not perform any such filtering action (or its equivalent) that is location specific and user specific. Further, the claims fail to set forth a specific combination of elements in specific locations but rather disclose known components functioning in their known capacity in their known locations. Hence, Bascom does not apply here.
Applicant's arguments try to establish eligibility through Office Examples (Remarks, page 11), are not persuasive. Specifically, the Office Examples are meant to be for training purposes and do not have the force of legal precedent. Further, Example 47 is directed towards the use of specifically trained ANNs to detect anomalies and is found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because:
“The claimed invention reflects this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection. Steps (d)-(f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step (d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f). These steps reflect the improvement 12 described in the background. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.” The current claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or technical filed of network intrusion. Instead, the instant claims perform the abstract idea of providing risk insights. Therefore, Example 47 does not apply.
Applicant’s rationale of argument based on Example 21 of the USPTO July 2015 Appendix Guidelines (Remarks, pages 11-12), in which additional elements of claim 2 of the example amounts to significantly more when compared to claim 1 of the example. The court's rationale is as followed:
“The claim recites the additional limitations of using a transmission server with a microprocessor and a memory to store subscriber preferences, transmitting a stock quote alert from the transmission server over a data channel to a wireless device, and providing a stock viewer application that causes the stock quote alert to display on the subscriber computer and enables a connection from the subscriber computer to the data source over the Internet when the subscriber computer comes online. It is noted that, as discussed above, some of the limitations when viewed individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (such as storing subscriber preferences or transmitting an alert). However, when looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination, the invention as a whole amounts to significantly more than simply organizing and comparing data. The claimed invention addresses the Internet‐centric challenge of alerting a subscriber with time sensitive information when the subscriber’s computer is offline. This is addressed by transmitting the alert over a wireless communication channel to activate the stock viewer application, which causes the alert to display and enables the connection of the remote subscriber computer to the data source over the Internet when the remote subscriber computer comes online. These are meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea (the general concept of organizing and comparing data) to the Internet, because they solve an Internet‐centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology, similar to the additional elements in DDR Holdings. These limitations, when taken as an ordered combination, provide unconventional steps that confine the abstract idea to a particular useful application.”
The reason why claim 2 is patent eligible (but claim 1 is not) is that the additional features in claim 2 solve an Internet-centric problem (i.e. alerting a subscriber with time sensitive information when the subscriber's computer is offline) with solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology. In Example 21, the challenge is Internet-centric, because the commonly-known computer solutions at the time could not readily solve the problem of alerting a user with time sensitive information when the user's computer is offline. Claim 2 provides technical solution (i.e. triggering the activation of the stock viewer application to enable the connection of the remote computer) to address a special circumstance that is unique to the Internet environment. The problem of “alerting a subscribed with time sensitive information when the subscriber's computer is offline” in Example 21 cannot be addressed by human mind or human with a pen and pencil.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims recite, “significantly more” (Remarks, pages 12-13) are acknowledged, however they aren’t persuasive. The mere combination of data sources, however, does not make the claims patent eligible. As we have explained, “merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and [announcement] does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.” Elec. Power, 2016 WL 4073318, at *4. Therefore, the claims are not found to include significantly more and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments that the examiner has not met the burden of proof in accordance with the Berkheimer memo (Remarks, page 13) are acknowledged. However, the Berkheimer memo sets forth that an examiner’s burden is met with, “A citation to an express statement in the prosecution or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements(s). A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or 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 USC 112(a)” (Berkheimer Memo, page 3). To this end paragraphs [0122-0129] have been cited in the 35 USC 101 rejection, and therefore the examiner’s burden of proof has been met. Additionally, applicant sets forth in those paragraphs that generic components and “FIG. 8 shows an example of computing system 800, which can be for example any computing device making up access devices, services, orchestration systems, client devices and/or APIs, exchange platforms, or any component thereof in which the components of the system are in communication with each other using connection 802” (paragraph [0122]). Therefore, the claims are not found to include significantly more and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments citing recent PTAB decisions (Remarks, pages 13-14) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the decision that applicant is referencing. Ex Parte Desjardins is directly related to the evaluation of claim eligibility when, “evaluating claims related to machine learning or artificial intelligence”, which are not elements of the recited claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Lindsay Maguire
6/25/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights