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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/11/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are pending in this application.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 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 15 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 1 and product claim 8. Claim 15 recites the limitations of transaction verification by using internet telemetry data/parameter for analysis.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. initiating transaction; sending transaction request; creating a session token for the transaction attempt; session token is an NFT; verifying the session detail through telemetry parameters including IP address, device ID, location, operating system, and mobile number; calculating a score based on the parameters; comparing the score to a threshold; and halt transaction and issuing an alert if score exceeds predefined threshold; the alert is a push notification display on (1) IoT device, (2) user device, and (3) to the administrator; and allowing verification of identification and transaction processing, – specifically, the claim recites: “initiating a transaction attempt…by sending a transaction request… creating a unique session token for the transaction attempt, wherein the unique session token is a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) created using blockchain technology to ensure traceability of each transaction session; verifying session details… by analyzing parameters including internet protocol (IP) address, device identification number, location, operating system, and mobile number; conducting a calculated score assessment to generate a calculated score based on verifying session details; comparing the generated calculated score against a predefined threshold to determine legitimacy of the transaction; and halting the transaction attempt and issuing an alert based on the calculated score exceeding the predefined threshold, wherein the alert is a push notification issued to a display interface of the IoT device, a user device associated with the IoT device, and to administrators notifying of the halting and allowing for verification of identification and transaction attempt processing,” recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a system”, “a processing device”, “a non-transitory storage device”, “an internet of things (IoT) device”, “a backend server”, “a unique session token”, “a Non-Fungible Token”, “blockchain technology”, “a display interface of the IoT device”, “a user device” and “an autonomous telemetry orchestration engine”, in claim 1; and the additional technical element of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” in claim 8, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a system, a processing device, an internet of things (IoT) device, a user device, and a backend server; a storage unit such as a non-transitory storage device, blockchain technology, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium; a communication device such as a display interface of the IoT device; data and data types such as a unique session token and a Non-Fungible Token; and software module and algorithm such as an autonomous telemetry orchestration engine. The computer hardware/software is/are 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of employ machine learning algorithms to dynamically adjust an assessment model based on historical transaction data and detected patterns of legitimate and suspicious activities, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “machine learning algorithms” and “an assessment model” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of the machine learning algorithms are selected from the group consisting of logistic regression, decision trees, and neural networks, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the machine learning algorithms” and “logistic regression, decision trees, and neural networks” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of the predefined threshold for the calculated score is dynamically adjustable based on real-time analysis of transaction data and tolerance levels set by one or more system administrators, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 discloses the limitation of the verification of session details involves cross-referencing with a database of known legitimate and suspicious parameters stored on a cloud infrastructure, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “a database” and “a cloud infrastructure” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of generate alerts using messaging services to notify users and administrators of suspicious transaction activities, wherein the messaging services are selected from the group consisting of SMS, push notifications, and email alerts, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of employ machine learning algorithms to dynamically adjust an assessment model based on historical transaction data and detected patterns of legitimate and suspicious activities, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “machine learning algorithms” and “an assessment model” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 discloses the limitation of the machine learning algorithms are selected from the group consisting of logistic regression, decision trees, and neural networks, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the machine learning algorithms” and “logistic regression, decision trees, and neural networks”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of the predefined threshold for the calculated score is dynamically adjustable based on real-time analysis of transaction data and tolerance levels set by one or more system administrators, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of the verification of session details involves cross-referencing with a database of known legitimate and suspicious parameters stored on a cloud infrastructure, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “a database” and “a cloud infrastructure” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of generate alerts using messaging services to notify users and administrators of suspicious transaction activities, wherein the messaging services are selected from the group consisting of SMS, push notifications, and email alerts, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of employ machine learning algorithms to dynamically adjust an assessment model based on historical transaction data and detected patterns of legitimate and suspicious activities, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “machine learning algorithms” and “an assessment mode” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 discloses the limitation of the machine learning algorithms are selected from the group consisting of logistic regression, decision trees, and neural networks, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the machine learning algorithms” and “logistic regression, decision trees, and neural networks”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 discloses the limitation of predefined threshold for the calculated score is dynamically adjustable based on real-time analysis of transaction data and tolerance levels set by one or more system administrators, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 discloses the limitation of the verification of session details involves cross-referencing with a database of known legitimate and suspicious parameters stored on a cloud infrastructure, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “a database” and “a cloud infrastructure” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, 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 dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. § 101… Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite, in one form or another, initiating a transaction attempt using an internet of things (IoT) device by sending a transaction request from the IoT device to a backend server; creating a unique session token for the transaction attempt, wherein the unique session token is a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) created using blockchain technology to ensure traceability of each transaction session; verifying session details against an autonomous telemetry orchestration engine by analyzing parameters including internet protocol (IP) address, device identification number, location, operating system, and mobile number; conducting a calculated score assessment to generate a calculated score based on verifying session details; comparing the generated calculated score against a predefined threshold to determine legitimacy of the transaction; and halting the transaction attempt and issuing an alert based on the calculated score exceeding the predefined threshold, wherein the alert is a push notification issued to a display interface of the IoT device, a user device associated with the IoT device, and to administrators notifying of the halting and allowing for verification of identification and transaction attempt processing,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has determined that these steps (in the above quote) are abstract idea of transaction verification by using internet telemetry data/parameter for analysis, carried out by generic computer. The Alice Court teaches that abstract ideas that lack genuine innovation beyond the use of generic computers are not patentable. Here, there is no technological innovation disclosed as required by Alice’s teaching. As stated in the prior office action:
“While the examiner agrees that the quoted elements are mentioned in the claims, they do not improve computer and network security technology. The improvement – if any – is due to the business procedure/idea being implemented. It is not due to any technological improvement.
This is because the technical elements are recited at the apply it level, because they are just used as tools for processing and transmitting data. E.g. “a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) created using blockchain technology”, “a processing device.. perform the steps of… initiating a transaction… attempting to perform… creating a unique session token… verifying session details… conducting a calculated score assessment… comparing… proceeding… or halting (in other words, processing and transmitting information/data)”, etc. They are operating as any generic computer would operate, recited at a high level of generality and are considered tools for performing the abstract idea. There is no technological improvement”.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Example 42… Similar to Example 42, the pending claims halt a transaction attempt and issuing an alert based on the calculated score exceeding the predefined threshold, wherein the alert is a push notification issued to a display interface of the IoT device, a user device associated with the IoT device, and to administrators notifying of the halting and allowing for verification of identification and transaction attempt processing,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is not the same as Example 42. Transaction verification by using internet telemetry data/parameter for analysis is not the same as the automatic generation of patient information by content server whenever new information is stored and transmitting the information in real-time to users on the net-work. In particular, Example 42 deals with the automation of information processing and transmission system where the modules are interconnected and are able to be triggered to execute to provide real-time updates to participating users. The claimed invention does not have the elements and the steps recited in Example 42. One must read Example 42 narrowly in deference to the Alice Court’s emphatic prohibition against patenting abstract ideas that lack genuine innovation beyond the use of generic computers. Implementing a business process/idea by processing data using generic computers is not patentable.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“the pending claims recite a particular way of stopping transactions with an automated notification for autonomous telemetry orchestration. Specifically, the pending claims recite: halting the transaction attempt and issuing an alert based on the calculated score exceeding the predefined threshold, wherein the alert is a push notification issued to a display interface of the IoT device, a user device associated with the IoT device, and to administrators notifying of the halting and allowing for verification of identification and transaction attempt processing,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Halting the transaction attempt and issuing an alert when the data input resulted in the a number larger than a predefined number is a business model and process, carried out by “generic computer”. There is no technical innovation. As stated in the prior office action:
“The verification process (e.g., calculating a score based on the parameters; comparing the score to a threshold; proceeding with transaction if score is below a threshold or halt transaction if score above threshold) is part of a business idea/model. They are abstract ideas (being carried out by “generic computer”)”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights