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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 5/21/2026 in which claims 1-3, 9-10, 16, and 19 have been amended. Thus, the claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/21/2026 has been entered.
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 is directed to an abstract idea to determine the probability that the survey response data includes fraudulent data without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 10 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1, 10, and 16.
Claim 10 is directed to a computer-readable medium storing instructions, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 10 describes a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computer system to: receive survey response data associated with a response of a digital survey, wherein the survey response data corresponds to a respondent client device; extract, utilizing a fraud indicator identification algorithm, one or more fraud indicators from the survey response data based on a set of fraud indicator rules applied to one or more attributes of the survey response data; generate, in parallel with determining the one or more fraud indicators, one or more additional fraud indicators by: generating a structured prompt comprising at least a portion of the survey response data and instructions to analyze unstructured text of the survey response data and identify one or more additional fraud indicators; and providing the structured prompt to a large language model to generate a synthesized output comprising the one or more additional fraud indicators; based on the one or more fraud indicators and the one or more additional fraud indicators, generate a fraud score for the survey response data indicating a probability that the survey response data includes fraudulent data; based on the fraud score, generate, using a neural network trained to weigh fraud indicators, a label for the survey response data by generating a fraudulent label indicating that the survey response data comprises fraudulent data; and in response to generating the fraudulent label, remove the survey response data from a dataset including a plurality of responses of the digital survey. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea to determine the probability that the survey response data includes fraudulent data. Furthermore; if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a client device, algorithm, a large language model, and a neural network do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 10 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a client device, algorithm, a large language model, and a neural network result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPRP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of a client device, algorithm, a large language model, and a neural network are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a client device, algorithm, a large language model, and a neural network are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 1 and 16, however, claim 1 recites additional elements of a processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which are recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to applying the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to add significantly more. Thus, the claims 1 and 16 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 10.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 10, and 16 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. 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 claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 5/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented operations utilizing a fraud indicator identifying algorithm, a structured prompt provided to a large language model, synthesized outputs generated from unstructured survey text, and a neural network trained to weigh fraud indicators. The claims further recite generating fraud indicators “in parallel” and updating a dataset of digital survey responses based on generated labels. These recited limitations are not directed to organizing human activity. Applicant also states that similar McRO, the presently amended claims recite specific rules and ordered operations for processing survey response data.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are initially considered in the absence of additional elements to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional elements are then considered to determine if the additional elements restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, it was determined that the claim recites an abstract idea of determine the probability that the survey response data includes fraudulent data and the additional elements do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The additional elements and a specific sequence of computer-implemented operations are considered further in more specific detail under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B to determine if the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to add significantly more.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant states that the currently amended claims recite a specific implementation involving fraud indicator rules, structured prompt generation for large language model processing, synthesized outputs comprising additional fraud indicators, neural-network weighting of fraud indicators, and dataset updating operations, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements applies the abstract idea without providing any technical improvement. There is no technical solution to a technical problem. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it simply applies the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant states that the presently amended claims recite a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of claim elements. The claims do not merely recite generic computer implementation of fraud detection. Rather, the claims recite a particular ordered combination in which fraud indicators are generated utilizing fraud indicator rules, additional fraud indicators are generated “in parallel” utilizing structured prompts and a large language model configured to analyze unstructured text, and a neural network trained to weigh fraud indicators generated labels used to update a dataset of digital survey responses.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim recites number of abstract limitations and the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it simply amounts to applying the abstract idea. There is no technical improvement and if there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea which is not sufficient to add significantly more. Moreover, the claim does not present an inventive concept and an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights