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 Final office action is in response to the application filed on February 27, 2024 and the amendments to the claims filed on November 18, 2025.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation, “receiving, by a risk insights system hosted by a risk-insights service provider” in line 4 of claim 1 and “wherein the large language model was trained on queries and responses associated with transaction processed by the risk insights service provider for multiple inquiring entities” in lines 10-12 of claim 1, similarly recited in claims 12 and 18. While there is support in the specification for, “risk insights system” there is not any support for that system to be “hosted by a risk-insights service provider”. Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, and 19-22 are considered to be rejected by virtue of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-22 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 hosted by a risk-insights service provider, from an inquiring entity that is different from the risk insights system, 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; determining, by the risk insights system, one or more factors contributing to the risk score for the transaction; providing, by the risk insights system, the one or more factors to a large language model, wherein the large language model was trained on queries and responses associated with transactions processed by the risk insights service provider for multiple inquiring entities, wherein the large language model is configured to generate, for the enquiring entity, a natural-language explanation based on the one or more factors, 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 2-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, and 20 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 2-4, 13-15, 21, & 22 further include a large language model; 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, 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 2-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-22 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Enfish and TLI Communications, (Remarks, pages 9-10), are not found persuasive. In Enfish, the court found that the inventive concept was a new type of data structure called self-referential table to improve the storing and retrieving data in memory. The court described this as an improvement in the functioning of a computer. However, the current claims do not purport to creating or improving any data structure or a computer. Hence, Enfish does not apply.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims of the present invention are analogous to those of McRo (Remarks, pages 9-10), are not found persuasive. In McRo, the court examined the specification, which described the claimed invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules, rather than human artists. Further, the court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that “improved [the] existing technological process”, unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Applicant's arguments try to establish eligibility through Office Examples (Remarks, pages 10-11), 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.
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 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 LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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
1/8/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619