DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on 08/12/2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 12, 15-20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 10-11, and 21 have been canceled.
Claim 23 has been added.
Claims 1-9, 12-20, and 22-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 07/10/2026, with respect to the prior 103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1-9, 12-20, and 22-23 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2026 with respect to the claims rejected for being directed towards an ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues #1:
Applicant disagrees with the Office that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant points to the USPTO's "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," (2019 Guidance) which took effect on January 7, 2019. The 2019 Guidance, provides a 2-prong inquiry into "step 2A of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance as incorporated into the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") 2106." Page 4 of the 2019 Guidance.
The first prong (2A1) of the 2019 Guidance requires that the Examiner identifies which claim limitation(s) are abstract. In order for a claim limitation to be abstract, the claim limitation has to be one of a mathematical concept, a certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental process. "Claims that do not recite matter that falls within these enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas," thus making the claims patent eligible. See, Page 11 of the 2019 Guidance.
MPEP 2106.04(II) notes the claim should be considered "as a whole" when performing the analysis under Prong I of the Step 2A analysis. Applicant respectfully submits that when Claim 1 is viewed "as a whole", Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract concept, but rather a sequence of technical operations performed by a processor to reconfigure how an event is processed within a distributed processing network. After identifying a processing condition such as a fraud indicator using an AI model, the processor does not merely output a fraud score or recommend an action. Instead, the identifies a different processing path configured to perform additional verifications, generates a different event configured to traverse that different processing path, generates an authorization message for the different event, marks a field of the authorization message with an identifier of the different processing path. The system then transmits the authorization message through the different processing path to cause execution of the different event.
The claim therefore recites significantly more than the mere concept of evaluating fraud risk. The AI model is integrated into a technical workflow that modifies both the event being executed and the network path through which an authorization of the event is transmitted. The claim changes the structure and routing of an authorization message so that the processing network executes a different event through a different sequence of verification operations. These limitations define a concrete implementation for controlling the operation of a processing network and improving the manner in which authorization messages are processed.
Thus, Applicant contends that the inquiry into the abstraction of Applicant's claims should end at this first prong as Applicant's claims do not fall into any of the enumerated groupings and therefore cannot be abstract.
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, identifying a processing condition such as a fraud indicator using an AI model, identifying a different processing path configured to perform additional verifications, generates a different event configured to traverse that different processing path, generates an authorization message for the different event, marks a field of the authorization message with an identifier of the different processing path are further describing abstract steps for how to process a request based on the attributes and information related to the request, using AI as a tool to do so which is generally linking the use of AI, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of computers and using general computer components to do so. As per MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 20106.05(h) mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application. Further, with respect to use of AI, this is akin to using a generic machine learning technique in a particular environment, with no inventive concept, as opposed to disclosing “a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts,” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016), or “a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process,” Koninklijke, 942 F.3d at 1150, the use of AI in the instant application does not provide an inventive concept or significantly more. The only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment, similar to which has been found by the Courts to be ineligible (see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025).
Applicant argues #2:
However, for the sake of argument, even if Applicant's claims did include an abstract idea, under the second prong (2A2) of the 2019 Guidance, as asserted by the Examiner in the Office Action, the Examiner is required to show that Applicant's claims are directed to, and do not just include, an abstract idea.
"A claim is not 'directed to' a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will 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 judicial exception." Page 13 of the 2019 Guidance.
Applicant notes that the claims impose meaningful, practical, and succinct operations that modifies the operation of a processing network itself. The process model is queried to identify a different processing path through the network, the authorization message is modified to identify that processing path, and the modified authorization message is transmitted so that the processing network executes the different event using additional verification operations. These steps alter how computing components within the processing network process authorization messages and therefore include a concrete improvement to the operation of a computer network rather than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract process.
The Examiner's analysis improperly ignores numerous claim limitations that define the practical application of the alleged abstract idea. The reasons for rejection focus almost exclusively on the identification of a processing condition while omitting the subsequent technical operations that distinguish the claim. In particular, the rejection does not address the limitations of querying a process model of processing paths, identifying a different processing path configured to perform additional verifications, generating a different event configured to traverse that processing path, generating an authorization message for the different event, marking a field of the authorization message with an identifier of the different processing path, and transmitting the authorization message through the different processing path to cause execution of the different event. By omitting these limitations, the Examiner impermissibly abstracts the claim away from the specific technological implementation that is actually claimed and improperly oversimplifies the claimed subject matter.
Furthermore, the claimed steps improve computer functionality by dynamically reconfiguring message routing within the processing network based on outputs generated by an AI model. Rather than simply rejecting an event predicted to present fraud risk, the system automatically generates a different event, generates a corresponding authorization message, embeds routing information within that message, and causes the processing network to execute the different event over a different processing path. The AI model serves as an input to a processing pipeline that changes how network resources perform verification and authorization operations.
Thus, Applicant's numerous claim limitations would clearly integrate an alleged abstract idea into a practical application that does not monopolize a judicial exception and are thereby patent eligible because the practical application of Applicant's claims allow for a real-world benefit through computing systems.
While applicant submits that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea as discussed above, should the Office nonetheless maintain its position that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, Applicant respectfully submits that under the second step (2B) of Alice the ordered combination of elements in the independent claims are sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite elements which integrate the claims into a practical application and thus the claims recite eligible subject matter under Section 101.
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as an initial matter, it is noted “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 has been reviewed using the Subject Matter Eligibility test as laid out in MPEP 2106, and found to be directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more, therefor this argument is not persuasive. For the same reasons as discussed above use of the AI model fails to render the claims eligible. With respect to the amended claims querying a process model of processing paths, identifying a different processing path configured to perform additional verifications, generating a different event configured to traverse that processing path, generating an authorization message for the different event, marking a field of the authorization message with an identifier of the different processing path, and transmitting the authorization message through the different processing path to cause execution of the different event, this is akin to Alice Corp. and ineligible for the same reasons, in which the Court walked through the test and found:
The Court identified the additional elements in the claim, e.g., by noting that the method claims recited steps of using a computer to "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions", and that the product claims recited hardware such as a "data processing system" with a "communications controller" and a "data storage unit" (573 U.S. at 224-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85);
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Court considered the additional elements individually, noting that all the computer functions were "‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry," each step "does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions", and the recited hardware was "purely functional and generic" (573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85); and
Wherein the aforementioned steps including sending the authorization request to different path are akin to tracking multiple transactions and issuing instructions. Additionally with respect to querying the model, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26, 110 USPQ2d 1984-1985 (2014) are WURC functions of computer and these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
For the reasons above, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 3, 10, and 17, the clause “wherein an AI agent performs an action related to the different event” is interpreted as an intended use/field of use of the different event. The intended use in the claim merely states the result of the limitation in the claim and adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 26 USPQ2d 1010 (Fed. Cir 1993); Griffin v. Bertina, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 22); Amazon.com Inc. v. Bamesandnoble.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1747 (Fed. Cir. 21). Hence the intended use limitations are not given patentable weight.
In general, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The following are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim:
statements of intended use or field of use,
"adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
"wherein" clauses, or
"whereby" clauses.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. See also MPEP § 2111.04.
The rejections given below are interpreted in light of 35 U.S.C. § 112, rejections and the claim interpretation discussed above.
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 1-9, 12-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – Claims 1-9, 12-20, and 22-23 pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards an apparatus, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and method.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) - The idea is recited in the claims, in part, by:
receiving a request to execute an event comprising a first event attribute and a predefined processing path through a processing network;
obtaining previous event content associated with the event;
executing a model on the first event attribute and the previous event content to identify a processing condition,
query a process model of processing paths to identify a different processing path configured to perform additional verifications based on the processing condition,
generate a different event configured to traverse the different processing path, wherein the different event includes a different event attribute than the first event attribute;
generate an authorization message for the different event;
mark a field of the authorization message with an identifier of the different processing path, and
transmit the authorization message through the different processing path to cause execution of the different event.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk) but for the recitation of generic computer components in that the model is utilized to analyze a request for a first event to determine a modification trigger to alter an authorization request based on the trigger to a different event, and as shown in fig. 4C and described in [0123], the different event suggested is lesser risk event, such as having an original request of a wire transfer for $20,000, holding the request, and only allowing the lesser risky option of a $4,000 wire transfer (the different event) to be accepted as shown in fig. 4C. Therefor the claims are directed towards mitigating risk. That is other than reciting an Artificial Intelligence Model, a database, an apparatus comprising a processor and memory, and computer-readable storage medium and in the dependent claims a graphical user interface of a computing device, and storage queue (which is defined in [0127] as a temporary storage mechanism) nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than fundamental economic principles or practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of an Artificial Intelligence Model, a database, an apparatus comprising a processor and memory, and computer-readable storage medium and in the dependent claims a graphical user interface of a computing device, and storage queue (which is defined in [0127] as a temporary storage mechanism). The an Artificial Intelligence Model, a database, an apparatus comprising a processor and memory, and computer-readable storage medium and in the dependent claims a graphical user interface of a computing device, and storage queue (which is defined in [0127] as a temporary storage mechanism) 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 and limits the judicial exception to the computer environment. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 20106.05(h)). Accordingly, these 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 towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements of an Artificial Intelligence Model, a database, an apparatus comprising a processor and memory, and computer-readable storage medium to perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment does not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26, 110 USPQ2d 1984-1985 (2014) (such as creating and maintaining "shadow accounts", "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions");, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);, Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."), are well-understood routine and conventional, similar to the instant application claims which recites sending and receiving data, and storing and retrieving data from the database to analyze a request to determine a modification trigger and alter an authorization request based on the trigger to different event, which as shown in fig. 4C and described in [0123], the different event suggested is lesser risk event, such as having an original request of a wire transfer for $20,000, holding the request, and only allowing the lesser risky option of a $4,000 wire transfer (the different event) to be accepted as shown in fig. 4C. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. For instance, claims 2-7, and 22-23 are all steps that fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas, but for further defining the computer environment in which the idea is being limited to by reciting the additional elements of a graphical user interface of a computing device, and storage queue (which is defined in [0127] as a temporary storage mechanism), however, similar to as discussed above, this is generally linking the use of the judicial exemption to a particular technical computing environment using generic computer components. The Dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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 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.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
