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 amendments filed on May 7, 2026.
• Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, and 16 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing some of the 35 USC § 112 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
New 35 USC § 112 rejections have been entered due to applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 103 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 112 for claim 5 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 8, regarding claim 5, that the term “computer vision” does not render the claim indefinite, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the Applicant argues that the claim provides a bounded description of a specific computer vision functionality, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim merely describes the result of the computer vision usage; this does not resolve the ambiguity presented by the limitation. The limitation of “using computer vision” to determine an emotional state and to locate a face of the user, without detail as to what specific algorithm or steps are being performed, is so broad as to be boundless and therefore indefinite under 112b.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 9-10, that the claims recite specific concrete technical processes that define how a computer system performs, and that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, the claimed invention allows for implementing additional security requirements to process a transaction initiated by the user when determining a user is in an abnormal emotional state. The Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0002] of the Specification, describing problem improving understanding of emotional states of users which may impact their financial decisions, and at least at [0017]-[0019], describing improving security and mitigate fraud associated with transactions, and at least at [0022], stating, “the present system may function like a coach or therapist, reading the speech, face, and/or body language and adjusting responses to bring focus back for the customer or user.” The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to understanding of emotional states of users which may impact their financial decisions and security and mitigate fraud associated with transactions, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice of mitigating risk, and a commercial and legal interaction of sales activities or behaviors which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 10 regarding McRO, Applicant’s reliance upon McRO is misplaced. The claims in McRO were held patent eligible because the claims were directed at specific rules that resulted in an improvement to the technology of computer generated lip synchronization. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process." The claims at issue in McRO described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, allowing the computer to perform a function not previously performable by a computer. In the instant application, the Applicant has failed to show or demonstrate where the technological improvement is. Rather, the pending claims are directed to solving the problem of improving understanding of emotional states of users which may impact their financial decisions and improving security and mitigate fraud associated with transactions (see at least [0002], [0017]-[0019], and [0022] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., improving understanding of emotional states of users which may impact their financial decisions and improving security and mitigate fraud associated with transactions, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field. The claims of the instant application are not directed to an improvement to a technological problem, and therefore McRO is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 11, that the claims integrate a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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). Here, the claims recite a computer system; a computing system comprising one or more processors and a data storage system in communication with the one or more processors, wherein the data storage system comprises instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform claim functions; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by computers, cause the computers to perform claim functions; using machine learning; using machine learning to apply methodology that extracts features from the respective data, classifies the extracted features, and fuses the classified features; the machine learning includes a neural network trained on emotional training feature data such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on page 11 that the claims reflect improvements in technology, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0002] of the Specification, describing problem improving understanding of emotional states of users which may impact their financial decisions, and at least at [0017]-[0019], describing improving security and mitigate fraud associated with transactions, and at least at [0022], stating, “the present system may function like a coach or therapist, reading the speech, face, and/or body language and adjusting responses to bring focus back for the customer or user.”
Furthermore, regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 11 where Applicants contend that the claims do not seek to preempt or monopolize a fundamental economic practice, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. In response to this argument, the Examiner notes, “While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The instant application is reviewed within the framework of the Revised Guidance which specifies and particularizes the Mayo/Alice framework.
Furthermore, regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 11 regarding Step 2B that the claims recite non-conventional technical components, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of the claim include a computer system; a computing system comprising one or more processors and a data storage system in communication with the one or more processors, wherein the data storage system comprises instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform claim functions; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by computers, cause the computers to perform claim functions; using machine learning; using machine learning to apply methodology that extracts features from the respective data, classifies the extracted features, and fuses the classified features; the machine learning includes a neural network trained on emotional training feature data. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer merely to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 11, that the claims improve technology, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem improving understanding of emotional states of users which may impact their financial decisions (see at least [0002] of the Specification), and improve security and mitigate fraud associated with transactions (see at least [0017]-[0019]). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., improving understanding of emotional states of users which may impact their financial decisions, and improve security and mitigate fraud associated with transactions, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
And, notably, the Examiner notes that paragraph [0022] states, “the present system may function like a coach or therapist, reading the speech, face, and/or body language and adjusting responses to bring focus back for the customer or user.” Applicant is reminded that, mere automation of a process, without improving a technical aspect of that process, does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”).
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 8-9 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitations of the artificial intelligence comprising “a recurrent neural network”. Although the Specification describes neural networks, the Specification is devoid of any support for the feature of a recurrent neural network. Therefore, it is new matter.
Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependency to a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “determining… using computer vision.” The limitation of “using computer vision” is so broad as to be boundless and therefore indefinite under 112b.
The rest of the dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency to a rejected claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 10, and 16 are directed to a method (claim 1), a system (claim 10), and an apparatus (claim 16). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 10, and 16 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 10, and 16 recite, in part, a system, a method, and an apparatus of organizing human activity. Using the limitations in claim 1 to illustrate, the claim recites receiving authentication information from a user; authenticating the user for a transaction based on the received authentication information; detecting an abnormal aspect of the transaction based on parameters of the transaction; upon detecting the abnormal aspect, determining an emotional state of the user by applying a facial emotional recognition methodology to facial image data of the user and a speech emotion recognition methodology to speech data of the user, wherein each of the facial emotion recognition methodology and the speech emotion recognition methodology to determine the emotional state; adapting a chatbot response to the user based on the determined emotional state of the user; receiving an input from the user after adapting the chatbot response; and implementing additional security requirements for the transaction based on the detected abnormal aspect, the input from the user, and the determined emotional state. The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for implementing additional security requirements to process a transaction initiated by the user when determining a user is in an abnormal emotional state, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice of mitigating risk, and a commercial and legal interaction of sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of a computer system do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of a computer system; a computing system comprising one or more processors and a data storage system in communication with the one or more processors, wherein the data storage system comprises instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform claim functions; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by computers, cause the computers to perform claim functions; using machine learning; using machine learning to apply methodology that extracts features from the respective data, classifies the extracted features, and fuses the classified features; the machine learning includes a neural network trained on emotional training feature data are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function detecting an abnormal aspect associated with a user conducting a transaction and require additional security requirements to proceed with the transaction) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, and 17-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. Dependent claims 5, 8-9, and 11-15, simply further describes the technological environment. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12131325 B1 (“Lyle”) discloses account access security at a network access device. The method includes receiving data indicating that a particular user has initiated a particular request at an access point; obtaining sensor data that is generated by one or more sensors of the access point proximate to a time that the particular user initiated the particular request; classifying the particular request as a particular type of request; in response to determining that the particular request is classified as the particular type of request, initiating an exception processing mode in which requests that are initiated by the users at the access point result in the generation and output of inaccurate completion data to mimic completion of the request; processing the particular request using the exception processing mode; and providing the inaccurate completion data generated by the access point for the particular request.
US 11861645 B2 (“Bermudez”) discloses receive biometric data and transaction data relating to a transaction, apply a model to the biometric data and the transaction data to determine an emotional state of the user during the transaction, and determine an action associated for the transaction based on the emotional state of the user during the performance of the transaction. Embodiments further include causing performance of the action.
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 RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM EST.
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 M Sigmond can be reached at (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 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights