DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 22 June 2026.
Claims 1 – 15 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 22 June 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 7, 11, and 15.
Amendments to claims 1, 7, 11, and 15 are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1 – 15 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that claims integrate into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While independent claims now give three options for adjustments to the system, they fall short of claiming how the changes functionally occur. There is argument of the “the system now alters how specific data packets are handled” without an actual claim to this functionality. There is no problem nor solution that is technical in nature when the claim describes adjusting one of a setting. Examiner recommends choosing one of the three and claiming how the adjustment is made to clarify the tie to technology that is argued herein. As claims currently stand, they are not specific to any technology and do not require technology in the manner claimed.
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 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite storing at least one risk profile associated with the entity and at least one risk property associated with each of the at least one risk profile; obtaining at least one risk profile associated with the entity and based on at least one risk property associated with the at least one risk profile, and wherein the at least one risk property is based on a number of wrong recipient advice instances associated with the entity over a predetermined period; generating the risk score associated with the entity based on the at least one risk profile; determining at least one adjustment to the properties of the system based on at least the risk score, wherein the at least one adjustment comprises at least one of: adjusting a quarantine setting for automatically quarantining incoming messages for a period of time; adjusting a data stripping threshold for removing attachments from incoming communications; or adjusting a frequency that links are rewritten in the incoming communications; and outputting the one or more adjustments to the at least one system. This judicial exception is 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. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method, the system, and the computer-readable storage medium are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of risk analysis and mitigation, as that is a fundamental economic principle or practice, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mental processes grouping, as claims describe determination of an adjustment based on the risk score. The risk score generation itself is categorized as mathematical concept, as the disclosure describes mathematical calculations to arrive at the risk score. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are storing at least one risk profile associated with the entity and at least one risk property associated with each of the at least one risk profile; obtaining at least one risk profile associated with the entity and based on at least one risk property associated with the at least one risk profile, and wherein the at least one risk property is based on a number of wrong recipient advice instances associated with the entity over a predetermined period; generating the risk score associated with the entity based on the at least one risk profile; determining at least one adjustment to the properties of the system based on at least the risk score, wherein the at least one adjustment comprises at least one of: adjusting a quarantine setting for automatically quarantining incoming messages for a period of time; adjusting a data stripping threshold for removing attachments from incoming communications; or adjusting a frequency that links are rewritten in the incoming communications; and outputting the one or more adjustments to the at least one system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a server, application programming interface, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and a processor, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application These elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: a server, application programming interface, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and a processor. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of particulars of risk score calculations, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights