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 . This office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filed February 17, 2026 in which claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are amended. Thus, claims
1-20 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 15 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 1 and 8.
The claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to a system and claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 15 recites : one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to: receive input data identifying input features associated with a user; process the input data, with an initial model, to predict one or more fraud stages for the user; identify one or more sets of machine learning models from a plurality of machine learning models wherein the one or more sets of machine learning models are tailored to detect fraud associated with the one or more fraud stages; process the input data, with the one or more sets of machine learning models, to determine one or more fraud parameters associated with the user; identify a fraudulent activity associated with the user based on the fraud parameters; utilize a large language model to generate steps to resolve the fraudulent activity based on historical fraud resolutions; selectively provide, based on the one or more fraud stages, the steps to resolve the fraudulent activity to either a representative or the user for implementation; and retrain one or more of the plurality of machine learning models based on feedback data received in response to providing the steps to resolve the fraudulent activity to the representative or the user. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, mitigating risk, and hedging). Identifying a fraudulent activity associated with the user is a way of mitigating a risk and mitigating a risk is a Fundamental Economic Practice. The claim also recites processors, a device, machine learning models and a large language model which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, processors, a device, machine learning models and a large language model, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 15 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of processors, a device, machine learning models and a large language model result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of processors, a device, machine learning models and a large language model to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2, Fig. 4, [0023]). Hence, the additional elements in the claim are generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of processors, a device, machine learning models and a large language model are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of processors, a device, machine learning models and a large language model are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 15 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can he extended to other independent claims 1 and 8 and hence the claims 1 and 8 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 15.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not recite any new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 1, 8 or 15.
Viewing the claim limitations as a combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible.
Prior art
3. Applicants’ amended claims have overcome the prior art of record and Applicants’ arguments regarding the prior art of record is persuasive; therefore the current art rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed dated 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
5. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2A, Prong 2 (pages 13-14), Applicant states that, “the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• 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
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The limitations of the amended claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. The specification describes the additional elements of processors, a device, machine learning models and a large language model (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2, Fig. 4, [0023]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. “ [C]laiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ [is] insufficient to render the claims patent eligible.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Accordingly, the additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 USC § 101 are maintained.
Examiner Request
6. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694