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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to an amendment received on 5/21/26 for patent application 18/970,697.
2. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20 are amended.
3. Claims 2, 11, and 17 are canceled.
4. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are pending.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argues#1
Amended claim 1 does not recite a "certain method of organizing
human activity"
Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1, and in particular the claim element "a request from the platform system for a computing service provided by a service provider system or a third-party system" does not recite a commercial transaction but recites a request for a technical computing service.
The term "certain" qualifies the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as a reminder of several important points. Second, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Applicant submits that the request for a computing service as claimed is not fundamental economic principle or practice, is not a commercial or legal interaction, and does not manage personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people. Accordingly, the claimed request for a computing service is not a certain method of organizing human activity.
(b) The claim elements "involve" an exception, but do not "recite" an exception
This is an overbroad generalization of the claims. While the elements of the independent claims may "involve" an exception, they do not "recite" an exception as required by MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
"Examiners should accordingly be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) and claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)." MPEP § 2106.04(I)(A)(1) (emphasis in original).
The proper test under Prong One is whether a judicial exception is "set forth or described in the claim" as opposed to "merely involve[d]" in the claim. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1) (emphasis in original). Analysis under Prong One cannot be based on an overgeneralization of the claimed elements and disregard of the detailed requirements recited therein.
The claims include specific technical claim language that is used to determine whether a request for a computing service is fraudulent. See e.g., Applicant's specification, paragraphs 0002-0003. The claim language includes "determining a network type associated with the request, the network type indicating whether the service provider system or the third-party system performs the computing service."
These features of claim 1 are more than any alleged abstract idea.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is pointed to MPEP section 2106.04(a)(2):
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions
"Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.
An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.
The limitation “receiving event data, the event data associated with a request for a computing service for a computing service..” fits squarely into the category of a commercial interaction, the identified abstract idea, (steps for predicting whether a transaction request is fraudulent).
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#2
Moreover, the pending claims are integrated into a practical application, thereby rendering them as statutory subject matter. While the Office alleges that the alleged abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application (Office Action, pages 3-4), the Office has not provided any analysis showing such. For example, the Office points to a number of components to argue that these do not amount to additional elements, but the Office fails to indicate whether "the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception," as required by the MPEP. See MPEP § 2106.04 (II)(A)(2) (emphasis added). This was reiterated in the August 4, 2025 Memo, which stated:
Analysis of claim as a whole: The analysis in Step 2A Prong Two considers the claim as a whole. The way in which the additional elements use or interact with the exception may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional limitations should not be evaluated in a vacuum, completely separate from the recited judicial exception. Instead, the analysis should take into consideration all the claim limitations and how these limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application.
USPTO August 4, 2025 Memo (added emphasis has been italicized). Accordingly, the Office has not satisfied its duty and Applicant requests that this rejection be withdrawn. As noted above, the features in claim 1 recite technical solutions to problems associated with a request for a computing service. Claim 1 does not recite a "certain method of organizing human activity," but rather recites a specific technical solution for addressing problems associated with determining whether a request for a computing service "is fraudulent prior to performing the requested services (e.g., data access, media service, etc. performed by the service provider system)." Applicant's specification, paragraph 0019.
The claimed elements also address technical problems relating to situations in which
outcomes reported by platform systems for services performed at remote systems may be less reliable than outcomes generated locally by service provider system 109. The lower reliability is due to the outcomes potentially being misreported, false, due to bugs in the software executing at the platform systems, or may be absent. Thus, different data sets may be used based on which network a service request is received (e.g., a network associated with the service provider system 109 processing a service request, or a different network associated with a fraud detection request for a service to be performed by a third-party system 107). Therefore, the potentially less reliable data is prevented from polluting the higher quality data, and the ML features derived therefrom are also ensured of maximum accuracy given their respective networks. As a result, the fraud detection and the operation of the ML models used to predict fraud are improved.
Applicant's specification, paragraph 0032. Thus, the claimed elements improve the accuracy of the generated prediction data (by separating out lower-reliability data based on network type), thereby providing a technical solution to a technical problem.
For at least these reasons, the claims are integrated into practical applications, thereby satisfying the subject matter eligibility requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, Applicant requests that this rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the office fails to indicate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The section 101 rejection did consider the combination of elements when determining under step 2a prong 2 that there was no integration into a practical application (see page 4 of the Non-Final rejection mailed on 2/25/26; “Accrdingly, 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”.
Therefore, the claims were evaluated as a whole (the way that the additional elements interact with the identified abstract idea) under step 2a prong 2.
Applicant argued the claims present a technical improvement. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (steps for predicting whether a transaction request is fraudulent) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology
Applicant argues#3
Step 2B Analysis
The Office alleges that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Office Action, page 5. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The "significantly more" inquiry has been described as "a search for an 'inventive concept." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (quoting Mayo, Inc., 132 S. Ct. at 1294). Put differently, the "significantly more" inquiry "look[s] more precisely at what the claim elements add," whether the claims include "meaningful limitations," and whether the claim "is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize" the abstract idea. Electric Power Group, 119 USPQ2d at 1741; Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11); Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).
Claim 1 recites specific features for receiving, by the server system, event data generated by a platform system, the event data associated with a request from the platform system for a computing service provided by a service provider system or a third-party system; determining, by the server system, a network type associated with the request, the network type indicating: whether the service provider system or the third-party system performs the computing service;
after determining the network type:
partitioning, by the server system, the event data into sets according to the network type
computing, by the server system, feature data from each partitioned data set; and
generating, by the server system, a prediction data set corresponding to the computed feature data from each partitioned data set, the prediction data set indicative of whether the request is fraudulent.
The Office argues that these elements are "recited at a high-level of generality and are being used in their ordinary capacity" (Office Action, page 4). When claim 1 is considered as a whole, these elements represent significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit confirmed that a specific, discrete implementation of an abstract idea contains an "inventive concept" that can amount to significantly more. BASCOM Global Internet Serv., Inc. V. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 342, 1349-1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In that case, while the Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of filtering content, it also observed that the claims did not "preempt all ways of filtering content on the Internet; rather, they recite a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering content" and thus contains an inventive concept amounting to "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Id. The Federal Circuit confirmed that "the 'inventive concept' may arise in one or more of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered combination of the limitations." Id. at 1346. The Federal Circuit emphasized that "an inventive concept can be found in the non- conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." Id. at 1350. The Federal Circuit further demanded that the "inventive concept" inquiry requires an "explanation." Id.
Moreover, like the claims in BASCOM, the pending claims do not preempt all ways of implementing the alleged abstract idea that the Office relies on. Based on the recited combination of elements (including "receiving event data associated with a request from the platform system for a computing service provided by a service provider system or a third-party system" and "determining a network type associated with the request, the network type indicating whether the service provider system or the third-party system performs the computing service"), claim 1 is subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
This combination of elements operates in a non-conventional and non-generic way to determine whether a request for a computing service is fraudulent prior to performing the requested services.
Thus, like in BASCOM, the claimed combination of additional elements presents a specific, discrete implementation of the alleged abstract idea. The additional elements in claim 1 thus represent significantly more (i.e., provide an inventive concept) because they are a practical implementation of the alleged abstract idea, even though the elements use well-known components.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that the Office has failed to establish a prima facie case for both Steps 2A and 2B, and respectfully requests that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
BASCOM was found patent eligible because the ordered combination was directed toward solving a problem arising in the realm of computer networks, providing a solution rooted in computer technology. BASCOM provided a filtering of content that was not independent of the internet. The ordered combination of elements as set forth by BASCOM, describe a customized filtering tool with customizable features specific to each end user.
It was the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional elements which made BASCOM patent eligible.
Whereas as discloses in the instant specification (see spec paras 23-28, 31, 47), discloses the additional elements (server system, network, platform system, service provider system, third party system, machine learning models) are recited at a high level of generalty and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore the claimed invention is unlike the invention in Bascom.
There are no additional elements in the claim that amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#4
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claims 8-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as allegedly being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Office Action, page 7. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this characterization of the claim language.
Claim 8 depends from claim 7. Claim 7 recites a "first ML model" and a "second ML model." Claim 8 recites a "third ML model."
Claim 9 also depends from claim 7. Claim 9 recites a "third ML model" and a "fourth ML model."
Because claims 7 and 9 would be read together (and would not include claim 8), the recitation in claim 9 of a "third ML model" clearly identifies the "third ML model" as is therefore definite.
Examiner Response
Based on applicant’s arguments, the 35 USC 112 rejections for claims 8-9 are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues#5
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-6, 10-14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ebel in view of Sharma. Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
A. Ebel in view of Sharma does not teach or suggest "a request from the platform system for a computing service provided by a service provider system or a third-party system" as claimed
The Office relies on Ebel to teach this element. Office Action, pages 8-9. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this characterization of Ebel. Ebel relates to financial transactions; see, e.g., Ebel, paragraph 0012: "The set of features used to assess the risk of the electronic transaction may include various information related to or derived from the electronic transaction, such as a transaction type, a transaction amount, a user account associated with the transaction "
By the plain meaning of the terms, a financial transaction as taught by Ebel is not the same as "a request from the platform system for a computing service provided by a service provider system or a third-party system" as claimed. Sharma does not cure the deficiencies of Ebel; nor does the Office allege such.
B.
Ebel in view of Sharma does not teach or suggest "the network type
indicating whether the service provider system or the third-party
system performs the computing service" as claimed
The Office relies on Ebel to teach this element. In particular, the Office argues that the "browser type" taught by Ebel is equivalent to the claimed "network type." Office Action, page 10. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this characterization of Ebel.
Ebel teaches
the transaction request initiated by the unauthorized user usually has characteristics that are different from the characteristics of past transaction requests generated by the legitimate users. The characteristics may include a location from which the request is generated (e.g., indicated by an IP address of a device that initiated the request), a device type used to initiate the request, a browser type used to initiate the request, etc.
Ebel, paragraph 0044. As known to a person of skill in the art, the "browser type" identifies the web browser used on a device, such as Microsoft Edge®, Google Chrome®, or Mozilla Firefoxᵀ
The "browser type" as taught by Ebel is not the same as "the network type indicating whether the service provider system or the third-party system performs the computing service" as claimed.
Sharma does not cure the deficiencies of Ebel; nor does the Office allege such. Accordingly, Applicant submits that Ebel in view of Sharma fails to teach or suggest "the network type indicating whether the service provider system or the third-party system performs the computing service" as claimed.
C. Ebel in view of Sharma does not teach or suggest "partitioning, by the server system, the event data into sets according to the network type, wherein one event data set corresponds to one network type" as claimed
Ebel in view of Sharma does not teach or suggest this newly added element of claim 1. Ebel teaches
The set of features used to assess the risk of the electronic transaction may include various information related to or derived from the electronic transaction Some of the features may be more relevant (or more indicative) for evaluating risks of electronic transactions than others. As such, generating a computer model involves determining which of the available candidate features should be used in evaluating risks of electronic transactions and possibly determining the weights of the selected candidate features.
Ebel, paragraph 0012. Applicant submits that Ebel does not teach or suggest partitioning the "data into sets according to the network type" as claimed.
Sharma teaches
A computer model generated for detecting fraudulent electronic transactions may use a set of data related to an electronic transaction to predict whether the electronic transaction is a possible, potential, or likely fraudulent transaction. The set of data may include information related to the transaction. Some of these data types (also referred to as "features" herein) may be more relevant (or more determinative) for detecting fraudulent transactions than others. a set of dominative features may be determined for the computer model for detecting fraudulent transactions. In some embodiments, multiple feature selection algorithms may be used to determine the set of dominative features.
Sharma, paragraph 0014. Applicant submits that Sharma does not teach or suggest partitioning the "data into sets according to the network type" as claimed.
Even if a person of skill in the art were to combine the teachings of Ebel and Sharma, they would still not arrive at "partitioning, by the server system, the event data into sets according to the network type, wherein one event data set corresponds to one network type" as claimed. Accordingly, Applicant submits that Ebel in view of Sharma fails to teach or suggest this element.
Examiner Response
Based on the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 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.
1. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10 ,16 are directed to a system, method and computer readable medium which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Representative claim 16 recites the limitations of:
A server system, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled with the memory configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by the server system, event data generated by a platform system, the event data associated with a request from the platform system for a computing service provided by a service provider system or a third party system;
determining, by the server system, a network type associated with the request, the network type indicating:
a network through which the event data associated with the request are sent from the platform system to the server system and
whether the service provider system or the third-party system performs the computing service;
after determining the network type:
partitioning, by the server system, the event data into sets according to the network type, wherein one event data set corresponds to one network type;
computing, by the server feature data from each portioned data set; and
generating, by the server system, a prediction data set corresponding to the computed feature data from each partitioned data set, the prediction data set indicative of whether the request is fraudulent.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claim recites elements that are in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction, steps for predicating whether a transaction request is fraudulent (e.g., receiving, event data generated, the event data associated with a request for a computing service provided by a service provider or a third party; whether the service provider or the third party performs the computing service; partitioning, the event data into sets according to the network type, wherein one event data corresponds to one network type; computing, feature data from each portioned data set; and generating, a prediction data set corresponding to the computed feature data from each partitioned data set, the prediction data set indicative of whether the request is fraudulent)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a Commercial Interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1, 10, are abstract for similar reasons.
(Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claims 1, 10,16 includes the following additional elements:
-A server system
-A memory
-A processor
-A network type
-A platform system
-A service provider system
-A third party system
- A non-transitory computer readable medium
The additional elements (server system, memory, processor, network type, platform system, service provider system, third party system and non-transitory computer readable medium) are recited at a high level of generality and are being used in their ordinary capacity and are being used as a tool for implementing the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application.
The additional elements (determining of a network type) is generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (choosing which network type to deploy), see MPEP 2106.05f(h).
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.
Therefore claims 1, 10, 16 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 1, 10, 16 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 3-9, 12-15, 18-20 further defines the identified abstract idea recited in claims 1,10, 16.
Claims 3,12, 18 further defines the identified abstract idea as recited in claims 1, 10, 16. The additional elements of the (API message and API endpoint of the server system) is recited a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea
Claim 4,13, 19 further defines the abstract idea recited in claims 1,10, 16. The addition elements (data store & network key) are recited a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Claims 6, 14, 20 further defines the abstract idea recited in claims 1,10, 16. The additional elements (first network and second network) are recited a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Claims 7, 15 further defines the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 10. The additional elements (first machine learning model & second machine learning model)
are recited a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Claim 8 further defines the abstract idea recited in claim 1. The additional element (a third ML model) is recited a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Claim 9 further defines the abstract idea recited in claim 1. The additional element (a fourth ML model) is recited a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the 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 dependent claims (3-9, 12-15, 18-20) are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 3-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are not patent-eligible.
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 MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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 at 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 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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 8/5/2026
Prosecution Insights