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 communication of January 13, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-6 and 21-32 are pending and have been examined.
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 1-6 and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 27 is directed to the abstract idea of “testing a model by using historical data to create test scenarios, running the model, and checking the results” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice” [hedging) in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Claim 27 recites “a …-implemented method for testing a … to output a risk determination for open banking transactions, the method comprising:
analyzing historical open banking platform data according to a plurality of … to determine a set of boundary conditions for each of
…;
applying the sets of boundary conditions to generate a plurality of simulated scenario test data sets, each of the plurality of simulated scenario test data sets corresponding to one of the plurality of …;
benchmark testing the risk model, the …, using the plurality of simulated scenario test data sets as input to generate corresponding outputs comprising risk
determinations for each of the plurality of open banking service business
domains; and
determining precision of the outputs according to expected or prior values”.
These limitations describe an abstract idea of testing a model by using historical data to create test scenarios, running the model, and checking the results and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic practice such as hedging).
Claim 27 also recites as additional elements such as “computer, risk model trained, open banking service business domains, risk model being implemented in an application programming interface (API) platform” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 27 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Further, as the additional elements of claim 27 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 27 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1 and 21 also recite the abstract idea of testing a model by using historical data to create test scenarios, running the model, and checking the results and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic practice such as hedging). Claim 1 includes the additional elements of “non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer executable instructions stored thereon … wherein when executed by the at least one processor the computer-executable instructions causes the at least one processor …, open banking service banking domains, risk model being implemented in an application programming interface (API) platform”. Claim 21 includes the additional elements of “system comprising : a processor; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions thereon, the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, causing the processor …, open banking service banking domains, risk model being implemented in an application programming interface (API) platform”. The additional elements of claims no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claims 2, 22, and 28 each recites “comprising identifying merchant category codes (MCCs) corresponding to the historical open banking platform data, the
… being organized according to the MCCs” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “plurality of open banking service business domains” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. And, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claims 3, 23, and 29 each recite “comprising attributing a plurality of risk determination requests comprising the historical open banking platform data to a plurality of open banking customers and to organize the … based on open banking services the open banking customers are enrolled in” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “open banking service business domains” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. And, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claims 4, 24, and 30 each recite “wherein the determination of the set of boundary conditions for each of the … includes implementing a plurality of key feature definitions” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “business domains” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. And, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claims 5, 25, and 31 each recite “comprising retraining or calibrating the risk model based at least in part on the precision determination and repeating the benchmark test using the plurality of simulated scenario test data sets as input to generate corresponding second outputs comprising risk determinations for each of the plurality of open banking service business domains” which further defines the abstract idea. The claim includes “plurality of open banking service business domains” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. And, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claims 6, 26, and 32 each recite “comprising generating a benchmark test report including one or more of: an overall match score; a risk score decile match; one or more risk score indicator comparison tables; a score indicator distribution
overall percentage match comparison; an overall score comparison; a feature set comparison; a day wise score decile distribution comparison; and a movement analysis” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
form the rejections under this section made in this Office action.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 21, 23, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dembo [US Pub No. 2017/0032458 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Dembo teaches:
Non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer- executable instructions stored thereon for testing a risk model trained to output a risk determination for open banking transactions, wherein when executed by at least one processor the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to:
analyze historical open banking platform data (loans are used in open banking platforms) according to a plurality of open banking service business domains to determine a set of boundary conditions for each of the business domains (see ¶ 0071 which breaks a bank’s services down to instruments (e.g. loan level aggregations));
apply the sets of boundary conditions to generate a plurality of simulated scenario test data sets (reads on the “scenarios”), each of the plurality of simulated scenario test data sets corresponding to one of the plurality of business domains (see ¶ 44 which explains “Each cell of the MtF table contains the computed MtF value for that financial instrument under a given scenario at a specified time step. An MtF Cube consists of a set of MtF tables, one for each financial instrument of interest.” and ¶63 discusses generating scenarios “Scenario unit 216 generates scenarios used to generate atomic data elements and the cube 220 structure.” );
benchmark test the risk model (see ¶ 76 “The platform 100 may use any set of models (internal models, institution models, and third party models). The platform 100 may easily compare result sets.”), the risk model being implemented in an application programming interface (API) platform (see ¶ 48] “The platform 100 may generate a wrapper processing and aggregation layer around the cube structure to modify and transform output processing, models and scenarios. The platform 100 may integrate with the cube structure using an API and formal calls or commands.”), using the plurality of simulated scenario test data sets as input to generate corresponding outputs comprising risk determinations for each of the plurality of open banking service business domains (see ¶ 73 “Scenario unit 216 provides the baseline and stress scenarios that contain baseline or stressed values of the risk factors for different portfolios held in the aggregation unit 206, over a pre-specified future stress horizon.); and
determine precision of the outputs (reads on “validation and calibration”) according to expected or prior values (see ¶ 111 “The workflow allows for reports to be carried out for any number of scenarios and models. Also, alternative pricing and valuation models can be attached to a transaction or loan. This enables comparison of pricing or valuation models, their validation and calibration.”). Claim 21 is a system claim with the same limitations as claim 1 and stand rejected on the same grounds. Claim 27 is a method claims with the same limitations as claim 1 and stands rejected on the same grounds.
With respect to claim 3, Dembo teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage media of The non-transitory computer-readable storage media of wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to attribute a plurality of risk determination requests comprising the historical open banking platform data to a plurality of open banking customers and to organize the open banking service business domains based on open banking services the open banking customers are enrolled in (see ¶ 71).
Claim 29 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, Dembo teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage media of The non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 1, wherein the determination of the set of boundary conditions for each of the business domains includes implementing a plurality of key feature definitions (see ¶71 which shows the various features of lending products).
Claim 30 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
With respect to claim 6, Dembo teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 1, wherein wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the at least one processor to generate a benchmark test report including one or more of: an overall match score; a risk score decile match; one or more risk score indicator comparison tables; a score indicator distribution overall percentage match comparison; an overall score comparison (see Fig 10); a feature set comparison; a day wise score decile distribution comparison (see Fig 13); and a movement analysis.
Claim 32 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Conclusion
Dependent claims 2, 5, 22, and 25 do not appear to be taught by the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 am through 6pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 July 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights