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 . This office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filed August 25, 2026 in which claims 1, 8, 10 and 15 are amended. Claims 19 and 20 were previously cancelled. Thus, claims 1-18 and 21-22 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/25/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 8 and 15.
The claims 1-7 and claims 21-22 are directed to a system, claims 8-14 are directed to a method and claims 15-18 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites : a communications interface that is connected to a plurality of financial institutions via one or more communications networks; one or more processors; and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive, from the plurality of financial institutions via the one or more communications networks, records of prior check redemption attempts;
receive, via the one or more communications networks, check information associated with a check from a receiving institution, wherein data sent over the one or more communications networks is encrypted; the check information comprises a first payee name printed on the treasury check, a check number of the treasury check, an amount of the treasury check, and a routing number of the treasury check; and the receiving institution comprises a financial institution of the plurality of financial institutions at which the treasury check has been presented for redemption; identify a treasury department that issued the treasury check using the routing number of the treasury check; send, via the one or more communications networks, at least a portion of the check information to a treasury department that issued the treasury check; receive, in response to sending the at least a portion of the check information, via the one or more communications networks, a second payee name from the treasury department, wherein the second payee name was printed on the treasury check issued by the treasury department; compare at least a portion of the check information to the records of prior check redemption attempts at the plurality of financial institutions to determine a duplicate status of the treasury check that is indicative of whether the treasury check has been previously submitted at another financial institution of the plurality of financial institutions; and provide, in real-time or near real-time, via the one or more communications networks, a response to the receiving institution, the response comprising the duplicate status of the treasury check and one or both of the second payee name and an indication of whether the first payee name and the second payee name match, wherein the one or both of the second payee name and the indication of whether the first payee name and the second payee name match are used to determine whether the treasury check is fraudulent. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as Fundamental economic principles or practices (determining whether the first payee name on a check from the receiving institution matches the second payee name received from the treasury department is a Fundamental Economic Practice). The claim also recites additional elements (as shown above in italics) which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, the recited additional elements (as shown above in italics), nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a risk assessment system, a communications interface, one or more processors, a memory and one or more communications networks, result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of a risk assessment system, a communications interface, one or more processors, a memory and one or more communications networks, to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0018], [0039]). Hence, the additional elements in the claim are generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar analysis can be extended to other independent claims 8 and 15 and hence the claims 8 and 15 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 15 also recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that amounts to generic computer implementation.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-18 and 21-22 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 4 and 5 recite a new additional element that is not present in independent claim 1 and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B.
Claims 4 and 5 recite the additional element of a machine learning model which simply describes the technological environment further. A machine learning model, recited in the claim, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-18 and 21-22 are ineligible.
Prior Art
4. The prior art rejection was withdrawn in the Non-final Rejection dated Nov. 07, 2025 based on the claim amendments. An updated search was conducted but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed dated 08/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
6. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2A, Prong 2 (pages 10-15), Applicant states that, “the claims integrate the alleged exception into a practical application.”
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the claims are directed to a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The limitations of the amended claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology; rather, it uses conventional computer components as a tool to execute a financial fraud-detection process. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. The claims merely apply the abstract idea to aim for the aspirational result. Declaration relies on features that are never recited in the claimed invention. Any reduced bandwidth that the applicant asserts on Page 13 of remarks is reflective of a result and hence hypothetical or speculative. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (1) (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”), (3) (“describes “the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished” and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result”). The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. The specification describes the additional elements of a risk assessment system, a communications interface, one or more processors, a memory and one or more communications networks (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0018], [0039-0042]).
Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements 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.
“ [C]laiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ [is] insufficient to render the claims patent eligible.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). By relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions is not an inventive concept). Looking at the amended limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
7. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Step 2B, Applicant states that (pages 10-15), “The Claims amount to significantly more than the alleged exception.”
One of the guidelines issued by the Office to determine if the claims recite additional elements which are not well understood, routine or conventional and hence, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, is the USPTO guidelines of April 19, 2018 incorporating the Berkheimer memo (Berkheimer memo, hereinafter).
According to the Berkheimer memo,
In a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements). This option should
be used only when the examiner is certain, based upon his or her personal knowledge, that the additional elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The claim simply applies the abstract idea using generic computer elements as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements in the claim are a risk assessment system, a communications interface, one or more processors, a memory and one or more communications networks. As per the rejection above, the specification describes the additional elements of a risk assessment system, a communications interface, one or more processors, a memory and one or more communications networks, to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0018], [0039-0042]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. Courts have established that doing something faster on a computer (real-time processing) does not make an abstract idea eligible. There is no indication in Applicants’ claims that any specialized hardware or other inventive computer components are required. The fact that a general purpose computing system, suitably programmed, may be used to perform the claimed method and the fact that the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces” but merely call for performance of the claimed functions “on a set of generic computer components, satisfies the Berkheimer memo requirement that the additional elements are conventional elements (as outlined in criterion 1 of the Berkheimer memo). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Response to Affidavit
8. The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on March 03, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-18 and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon unpersuasive arguments. The arguments in the affidavit refer only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. There is not a strong nexus. Applicant's declaration suggests that an improvement (i.e., hub-and-spoke network topology) was what applicant contemplated in the specification as filed 09/13/24. Examiner disagrees. The Agarwal Declaration relies upon features that are never recited in the claimed invention and/or are nominally recited in the claimed invention (e.g., "risk assessment system then queries its centralized databases"; "different APIs and message formats").
Applicant's declaration (directed to opinion testimony/evidence and conclusions) has little weight when considered in light of all the evidence of record in the application. In totality, what applicant describes is "hub-and-spoke" arrangement. As noted above, applicant's own specification appears to acknowledge the conventional nature of applicant's technology. See at least para. [0037] [0038] [0039] [0040] [0041] [0042] of applicant's specification. The expert, Tushar Agarwal, whose declaration has been presented is not a neutral party. As a named inventor, Tushar Agarwal, has an interest in the outcome of the case (See named INVENTORS on the Application Data Sheet as filed 09/13/24). Furthermore, the declaration represents Tushar Agarwal's opinions and conclusory statements, not factual evidence. Hence, the affidavit is insufficient.
Examiner Request
9. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BHAVIN D SHAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
