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 8/18/2026 in which claims 1-16 and 19-20 have been amended. Thus, the claims 1-20 are pending in the 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 1-20 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: capture, from a respondent client device, device data representing a plurality of device attributes of the respondent client device during completion of a digital survey; receive, from the respondent client device, survey response data associated with a response of the digital survey, the survey response data comprising structured response data and unstructured response text; generate, utilizing a fraud indicator identification algorithm, one or more device-derived fraud indicators by applying one or more fraud-indicator rules to the device data, wherein the one or more device-derived fraud indicators indicate that the survey response data does not convey an authentic response to the digital survey due to computer-based activity associated with the respondent client device; generate, utilizing the fraud indicator identification algorithm, one or more attribute-based fraud indicators by applying a set of fraud indicator rules to the structured response data; generate, one or more inconsistency fraud indicators by: generating a structured prompt comprising the survey response data and instructions to identify one or more inconsistencies between the structured response data and the unstructured response text of the survey response data; and providing the structured prompt to a large language model to generate a synthesized output comprising the one or more inconsistency fraud indicators corresponding to the one or more inconsistencies between the structured response data and the unstructured response text of the survey response data; generate, using a neural network trained to apply learned weights to fraud indicators, a fraud score for the survey response data by applying the learned weights to the one or more device-derived fraud indicators, the one or more attribute-based fraud indicators, and the one or more inconsistency fraud indicators; and in response to the fraud score satisfying a fraudulent response threshold, generate a scrubbed survey-response dataset by removing the survey response data from a dataset comprising 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, digital, algorithm, computer, 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, digital, algorithm, computer, 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, digital, algorithm, computer, 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, digital, algorithm, computer, 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 8/18/2026 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, Applicant states that similar to Ex Parte Hannun, the currently amended claims do not recite limitations that are “human activity,” but recite a multi-modal computational pipeline that extracts multiple fraud signals from heterogeneous data sources, fuses those signals through learned neural-network weighting, and automatically removes non-authentic responses to produce a scrubbed survey-response dataset. Specifically, similar to Ex Parte Hannun, which recited a trained neural network that generated predicted character probabilities.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim limitations are considered in the absence of additional elements to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, even though, the claim describes a multi-modal computational pipeline that extracts multiple fraud signals from heterogeneous data sources, fuses those signals through learned neural-network weighting, and automatically removes non-authentic responses to produce a scrubbed survey-response dataset, the claim is still considered to recite an abstract idea. The technical limitations are then further considered in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B to determine if the technical limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to add significantly more. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant states that the currently amended claims are patent eligible because the claims recite a practical application. Like the patent-eligible claims in Thales that utilize a “particular configuration” of sensors and data to “more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object,” the currently amended independent claims recite a particular configuration and flow of information for improving computer-implemented survey-data integrity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that removal of non-authentic response data to generate a scrubbed dataset is an improvement to an abstract idea of minimizing fraudulent data and not an improvement to technology. The improvement to an abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the claims of the present application include limitations that are significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that identifying and removing non-authentic data from computerized survey-response datasets does not provide an inventive concept as identifying and removing steps are abstract in nature. An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. V. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d at 1981. Instead, an “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In this case, the additional elements merely applies the abstract idea and when the limitations are taken together as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to add significantly more. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 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