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's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues and states that the instant claims as now amended and
submitted are statutory over 35 USC 101.
In response, the Examiner respectfully with the applicant’s arguments. A 35 USC 101 rejection on the claims as amended is found below.
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, 12-16, 18-19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 1 and 14 are directed to a method. Claim 8 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
Claim 1 recites :
(Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method of facilitating a digital transaction, via a network, using encoded data, comprising:
receiving, by a processor, via the network, and from an additional processor associated with a pending digital transaction, information including:
an identity of a user, and
transaction data associated with the pending digital transaction establishing, by the processor and via the network, a communication link with a transaction server;
retrieving, by the processor, based on the identity of the user, and from the transaction server via the network, encoded data corresponding to a plurality of transactions:
determining, by the processor and based on the encoded data,
a first correlation between the identity of the user of an electronic device and a first credit score;
determining, by the processor, a subset of the encoded data associated with the transaction data;
determining, by the processor, a second correlation between the first credit score and the subset of the encoded data;
determining, by the processor, that the second correlation is characterized by a value that exceeds a threshold; and
causing, by the processor and based on determining that the second correlation is characterized by a value that exceeds the threshold, the additional processor to execute the pending digital transaction of the plurality of transactions.
3. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the encoded data includes the first credit score in aggregated data comprising a subset of the plurality of transactions within a particular time period.
5. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the first correlation comprises:
accessing, by the processor, a heuristic algorithm from a memory,
wherein the first correlation is determined by executing the heuristic algorithm using, as input, aggregated data included in the encoded data.
6. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the memory is associated with an external server accessible to the processor via the network.
7. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first credit score complies with:
a standard measure of credit worthiness issued by a regulatory authority or
a credit reporting standard.
8. (Currently Amended) A computer system configured to facilitate a digital transaction, via a network, using encoded data, the computer system comprising a processor, the computer system being configured to:
receive, by the processor, via the network, and from an additional processor associated with a pending digital transaction, information including:
an identity of a user, and
transaction data associated with the pending digital transaction;
establish, by the processor and via the network, a communication link with a transaction server;
retrieve, by the processor, based on the identity of the user, and from the transaction server via the network, encoded data corresponding to a plurality of transactions;
determine, by the processor and based on the encoded data,
a first correlation between the identity of the user and a first credit score;
determine, by the processor, a subset of the encoded data associated with the transaction data;
determine, by the processor, a second correlation between the first credit score and the subset of the encoded data;
determine, by the processor, that the second correlation is characterized by a value that exceeds a threshold: and
cause, by the processor and based on determining that the second correlation is characterized by a value that exceeds the threshold, the additional processor to execute the pending digital transaction.
9. (Original) The computer system of claim 8, wherein the first credit score complies with a credit reporting standard.
10. (Currently Amended) The computer system of claim 8, wherein the encoded data includes the first credit score in aggregated data comprising a subset of the plurality of transactions within a particular time period.
12. (Currently Amended) The computer system of claim [[10]]8, wherein determining the first correlation comprises:
accessing, by the processor, a heuristic algorithm from a memory,
wherein the first correlation is determined by executing the heuristic algorithm using the encoded data as input.
13. (Currently Amended) The computer system of claim 12, wherein the memory is associated with an external server accessible to the processor via the network.
14. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising computer readable instructions for facilitating a digital transaction, via a network, using encoded data, that, when executed, cause a computer processor to:
receive, by the computer processor, via the network, and from an additional processor associated with a pending digital transaction, information including:
an identity of a user, and transaction data associated with the pending digital transaction;
establish, by the computer processor and via the network, a communication link with a transaction server;
retrieve, by the computer processor, based on the identity of the user, and from the transaction server via the network, encoded data corresponding to a plurality of transactions;
determine, by the computer processor and based on the encoded data,
a first correlation between the identity of the user of and a first score;
determine, by the computer processor, a subset of the encoded data associated with the transaction data;
determine, by the computer processor, a second correlation between the first score and the subset of the encoded data;
determine, by the processor, that the second correlation is characterized by a value that exceeds a threshold; and
cause, by the computer processor and based on determining that the second correlation is characterized by a value that exceeds a threshold, the additional processor to execute the pending digital transaction.
15. (Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein the first score comprises a credit score and complies with:
a credit reporting standard or
a standard measure of credit worthiness issued by a regulatory authority.
16. (Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein the encoded data includes the first score in aggregated data comprising a subset of the plurality of transactions within a particular time period.
18. (Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16, wherein determining the first correlation comprises:
accessing, by the computer processor, a heuristic algorithm from a memory, wherein the first correlation is determined by executing the heuristic algorithm using the encoded data as input.
19. (Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein the memory is associated with an external server accessible to the computer processor via the network.
Claim 21 recites: providing, by the processor, the subset of the encoded data as input to a machine-learned model,
wherein the second correlation is determined by the machine-learned model, as an output, based on the subset of the encoded data.
Claim 22 recites: wherein the encoded data includes data associated with a particular transaction of the plurality of transactions, the data including one or more of:
a device associated with the particular transaction,
geolocation information associated with the particular transaction,
user login details associated with the particular transaction, or
unstructured data representing an interaction with the user.
Claim 23 recites: wherein the computer system is further configured to:
provide, by the processor, the subset of the encoded data as input to a machine-learned model,
wherein the second correlation is determined by the machine-learned model, as an output, based on the subset of the encoded data.
Claim 24 recites: wherein the encoded data includes data associated with a particular transaction of the plurality of transactions, the data including one or more of:
a device associated with the particular transaction,
geolocation information associated with the particular transaction,
user login details associated with the particular transaction, or
unstructured data representing an interaction with the user.
Claim 25 recites: wherein the unstructured data includes natural language inputs provided by the user during the interaction.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as managing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because it amounts to the functions of performing a financial transaction.
The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of:
determining, a subset of the encoded data associated with the transaction data, determining a second correlation between the first credit score and the subset of the encoded data, determining that the second correlation is characterized by a value that exceeds a threshold; and causing, and based on determining that the second correlation is characterized by a value that exceeds the threshold, to execute the pending digital transaction of the plurality of transactions.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be additional limitations.
These limitations performing steps or functions of “determining, a subset of the encoded data associated with the transaction data, determining a second correlation between the first credit score and the subset of the encoded data, determining that the second correlation is characterized by a value that exceeds a threshold; and causing, and based on determining that the second correlation is characterized by a value that exceeds the threshold, to execute the pending digital transaction of the plurality of transactions” amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(1)), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, similarly describing usage of general and special purpose computer, including generic commercially available devices.
The claimed “processor”, “device” and “server” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
Performing steps by a generic machine, computing device or one or more processors with memories merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 ¢h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Retrieving, and determining data are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors or computing device which generate and determine data.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of facilitating a transaction.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Retrieving data by electronic means or hardware amounts to receiving data over a network has been recognized by the courts as routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)UD, citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, Lis USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Positively reciting a “processor”, a “server” and a “device” does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed
elements are noted to a be a generic computer for collecting data and performing routine and conventional functions. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processors”, “server”, and “device” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the 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.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 14 are is directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,377. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-20 of the '377 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '377 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 1-20 are contained in claims 1-20 of the '377 patent.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“determining, a subset of the encoded data associated with the transaction data, determining a second correlation between the first credit score and the subset of the encoded data, determining that the second correlation is characterized by a value that exceeds a threshold; and causing, and based on determining that the second correlation is characterized by a value that exceeds the threshold, to execute the pending digital transaction of the plurality of transactions” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 8 and 14.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
March 10, 2026