DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 5/12/2026. Claims 1, 8, 10, 17 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The previously pending objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings received on 5/12/2026 are accepted.
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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147647 (‘647).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 of the current application correspond to independent claims 1, 11, and 20 of ’647, respectively. Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 of ’647 disclose similar generating, receiving, presenting, and receiving steps of claims 1, 10 and 19 of the current application, respectively. Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 of ’647 do not disclose generating, based on one or more artificial intelligence (Al) models, a plurality of risk assessments corresponding to a plurality of risk factors associated with an entity; a graphical visualization including a web indicating relationships between the entity and other entities, wherein the web is dynamically configurable by the user to adjust a number of degrees of connections in the web, and updating an AI model of the one or more Al models corresponding to the risk factor based on the user evaluation.
However, it would have been obviously to include generating, based on one or more artificial intelligence (Al) models, a plurality of risk assessments corresponding to a plurality of risk factors associated with an entity; a graphical visualization including a web indicating relationships between the entity and other entities, wherein the web is dynamically configurable by the user to adjust a number of degrees of connections in the web, and updating an AI model of the one or more Al models corresponding to the risk factor based on the user evaluation, in claims 1, 11, and 20 of ’647, as disclosed in dependent claims 3 and 4 of ‘647, and paragraphs 0033 and 0051 of the originally filed specification of ‘647. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Additionally, dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 recite elements found in the independent and/or dependent claims of ‘647.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, system claims 1-9 are directed to one or more computer readable storage devices configured to store computer readable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer readable instructions, method claims 10-18 are directed to a series of steps, and computer readable storage medium claims 19 and 20 are directed to program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by one or more processors. Thus the claims are directed to a machine, process and manufacture, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite risk assessment, including generating, receiving, presenting and updating steps.
The limitations of generating, receiving, presenting and updating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite generating a plurality of risk assessments corresponding to a plurality of risk factors associated with an entity; receiving from a user, a user selection of a risk factor of the plurality of risk factors; presenting, in response to receiving the user selection of the risk factor: a risk assessment, of the plurality of risk assessments, corresponding to the risk factor, wherein the risk assessment includes a graphical visualization including a web indicating relationships between the entity and other entities, wherein the web is dynamically configurable by the user to adjust a number of degrees of connections in the web; and a user evaluation option for the risk factor; receiving, via the graphical user interface and from the user, a user interaction with the evaluation option indicating a user evaluation of the risk factor; and in response to receiving the user evaluation of the risk factor, updating a model corresponding to the risk factor based on the user evaluation.
That is, other than reciting one or more processors, on one or more artificial intelligence (Al) models, and a graphical user interface, the claim limitations merely cover mitigating risk and managing interactions between people, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include one or more processors, on one or more artificial intelligence (Al) models, and a graphical user interface. The one or more processors, on one or more artificial intelligence (Al) models, and a graphical user interface in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of one or more processors and a graphical user interface 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.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 3 further describe the risk assessment, and recite additional generating and causing steps. Claims 4-6 recite additional receiving, comparing, approving, and presenting steps. Claims 7-9 further describe the presented combined risk assessment. Similarly, dependent claims 11-18 and 20 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, one or more processors, on one or more artificial intelligence (Al) models, and a graphical user interface.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed paragraph 0115 of the specification, “Any of the above-mentioned processors, and/or devices incorporating any of the above-mentioned processors, may be referred to herein as, for example, “computers,” “computer devices,” “computing devices,” “hardware computing devices,” “hardware processors,” “processing units,” and/or the like.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues the Office Action fails to identify specific limitations that recite any alleged abstract idea. Thus, the Office Action fails to make a prima facie case of ineligibility. Second, none of the claimed features relate to methods of organizing human activity, which according to the 2019 PEG includes things such as fundamental economic principles, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Claim 1 relates to generating a plurality of risk assessments "using one or more AI models" and providing a "graphical user interface" including a user evaluation option that can be selected by a user, and not to "organizing human activity." Thus, because the Office Action has failed to establish that the claim 1 recites an abstract idea, Applicant requests that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
On page 7 the Office Action further asserts that the claims, as a whole, do not integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant disagrees. Even if the claims recite an abstract idea (which they do not), any supposed abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
For example, claim 1 recites a combination of elements that include: "generating, based on one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models, a plurality of risk assessments ..."; " "receiving, via a graphical user interface and from a user, a user selection of a risk factor"; " "presenting, in response to receiving the user selection of the risk factor, and via the graphical user interface: a risk assessment, of the plurality of risk assessments, corresponding to the risk factor, wherein the risk assessment includes a graphical visualization including a web indicating relationships between the entity and other entities, wherein the web is dynamically configurable by the user to adjust a number of degrees of connections in the web"; " presenting via the graphical user interface "a user evaluation option of the risk factor"; " "receiving, via the graphical user interface and from the user, a user interaction with the user evaluation option .. ."; and " "in response to receiving the user evaluation of the risk factor, updating an AI model of the one or more AI models ..."
These elements recite specific manners of analyzing data using one or more AI models, presenting the results of analysis, receiving a user evaluation (input), and further updating the one or more AI models based on the received user evaluation. This specific approach provides "more accurate, comprehensive, and faster analysis".
Even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea (which they are not), they amount to significantly more than any supposed abstract idea. In particular, Applicant submits that claim 1 provides an inventive concept (e.g., "significantly more" than the judicial exception) because it recites a combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. For example, as described above, claim 1 recites a specific manner of analyzing data using one or more AI models to generate risk assessments corresponding to a plurality of risk factors associated with an entity, receiving via a graphical user interface a user selection of a risk factor of the plurality of risk factors, receiving via the graphical user interface a user selection of a risk factor, in response to receiving the user selection of the risk factor, presenting a graphical visualization of a risk assessment corresponding to the selected risk factor as a web indicating relationships between the selected entity and other entities, receiving a user evaluation for the risk factor via the graphical user interface, and updating an AI model based on the received user evaluation. Thus, Applicant submits that claim 1, even if directed to an abstract idea (which it is not), provides an inventive concept that is "significantly more" than the abstract idea because it recites unconventional steps for specific analyses and interactive user interfaces. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As described in paragraph 0004 of the specification, “The law-abiding organizations may desire to document their diligence in investigating their clients. For example, the organizations may document their investigation of each client to justify engaging in a business relationship with the client. The organizations can establish business relationships with low risk clients who pass the investigation and refuse to work with clients who are deemed high risk. If the client is later discovered to engage in illegal activities, then the organization can justify the bona fide business relationship with (what was thought to be) a low risk client and avoid complicit liability.”
Additionally, paragraph 0033 recites “Figure 1 shows an example AI system 100 for evaluating the risk of client participation in illegal activity. The system includes a search module 101 for using a data stream module 104 to search databases 103 or the internet 105 based on user input 102, an AI evaluation module configured to execute a plurality of AI models 109 to generate risk assessments 111, a user interface 113, a data visualization generator 123, an AI model modifier 125, a low risk client approval module 127, and an archive 129. The user interface 113 can include a first area showing a plurality of risk factors 115, a second area showing data 117 for analyzing a risk factor, a third area showing one or more AI evaluations 119, and a fourth area for receiving an analyst evaluation 121 of the risk factor. Using the AI system 100 of Figure 1, the review of clients for risk indicators can be partially automated, and data is presented in a format to facilitate detection of high risk clients”.
As a result, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, other than reciting one or more processors, on one or more artificial intelligence (Al) models, and a graphical user interface, the claim limitations merely cover mitigating risk and managing interactions between people, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims include one or more processors, on one or more artificial intelligence (Al) models, and a graphical user interface.
The one or more processors, on one or more artificial intelligence (Al) models, and a graphical user interface in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., one or more processors, on one or more artificial intelligence (Al) models, and a graphical user interface). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, generating, based on one or more artificial intelligence (Al) models, a plurality of risk assessments corresponding to a plurality of risk factors associated with an entity; and in response to receiving the user evaluation of the risk factor, updating an AI model of the one or more Al models corresponding to the risk factor based on the user evaluation does not seem to involve anything other than the application of a known technique in its normal, routine, and ordinary capacity.
As an initial point, it is unclear whether the updated AI model is the same AI model used in the initial “generating” step, since the claim language includes “one or more AI models”.
Additionally, while the claim language describes a vague updating an AI model, the claim does not positively recite a retraining of the model. Specifically, as described in paragraph 0051, “For each risk factor 115 that the analyst evaluation 121 differed from the AI evaluation 119, feedback can be used to update the corresponding AI model 109, such as by providing negative reinforcement feedback, changing coefficient values, adding a verified data sample and retraining the model, etc.”, and that “The feedback can reinforce (positively or negatively) the AI model, act as a new verified data point for retraining the AI model, cause the AI model to update with a new path or grouping, change coefficients used in the AI model, etc.”, as described in paragraph 0101.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, one or more processors, on one or more artificial intelligence (Al) models, and a graphical user interface.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights