DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on July 02, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 13-14, and 17 have been amended. Claims 8 and 16 have been canceled and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
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.
4. Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process, (claims 1-7), a machine (claims 9-15), and a manufacture (claims 17-20), where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of gathering data from various services in order to determine a level of risk of the service by:
receiving, by the at least one,…, a plurality of data sets from a plurality of services in response to a grading request;
storing, by the at least one,…, the plurality of data sets in a database;
aggregating, by the at least one,…, the plurality of data sets;
providing, by the at least one,..., a first aggregated data set and a second aggregated data set out of the plurality of data sets to a first engine and a second engine, respectively, wherein the first aggregated data set and the second aggregated data set include at least one from among client repayment data, origination data, risk related data, and a market indicator, and wherein the first aggregated data set and a second aggregated data set are provided through a secure data communication,…, that ensures confidentiality of the first aggregated data set and the second aggregated data set;
transforming, by the at least one,…, the second aggregated data set into a predefined format that includes a predetermined grading schedule for executing at least one assessment test;
configuring, by the at least one,…,using the first engine, at least one simulation test in accordance with the grading request and the first aggregated data set;
configuring, by the at least one,…,using the second engine, the at least one assessment test based on the predefined format and the second aggregated data set;
generating, by the at least one,…, a first request via the first engine;
generating, by the at least one,…, a second request via the second engine;
transmitting, by the at least one,…, the first request to a first external service from among a plurality of external services through an orchestration service,…, wherein the orchestration service,…, coordinates the processing and transmittal of the plurality of data sets to the plurality of external services;
transmitting, by the at least one,…, the second request to a second external service from among the plurality of external services through the orchestration service,…;
receiving, by the at least one,…, a first response to the first request from the first external service;
receiving, by the at least one,…, a second response to the second request from the second external service;
executing, by the at least one,…, the at least one simulation test using the first engine and the at least one assessment test using the second engine to generate an intermediate result, wherein the first engine utilizes the first response for the executing of the at least one simulation test, and wherein the second engine utilizes the second response for executing of the at least one assessment test;
transmitting,….., the intermediate result to the orchestration service,…; and
processing, by the at least one,…., using the orchestration service,…, the intermediate result to generate at least one grading output for the grading request.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., gathering data from various services in order to determine a level of risk of the service).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “processor” “protocol,” and “module” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0007] of the specification). Claims 9 and 17 are nearly identical to claim 1 so the same analysis applies to these claims as well. Claim 9 contains several additional elements such as “memory” and “communication interface” that are being used to implement the abstract idea noted in claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7, 10-15, and 18-20 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe what the grading request comprises in terms of asset details or other parameters. Dependent claims 3, 11, and 19 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe what the simulation parameters comprise. Dependent claims 4, 12, and 20 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe what the plurality of services comprise. Dependent claims 5 and 13 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe what the first aggregated data set comprises. Dependent claims 6 and 14 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe what the second aggregated data set comprises. Dependent claims 7 and 15 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe displaying the grading output using a user interface.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The Examiner considers the following reference pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
Baikalov et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0066575) teaches a system and methods for assessing risk in an enterprise. Although the invention in Baikalov describes the use a risk score or grading mechanism to assess an asset level’s risk, it fails to disclose the following limitations of the current invention:
“configuring, by the at least one processor using the first engine, at least one simulation test in accordance with the grading request and the first aggregated data set;
configuring, by the at least one processor using the second engine, at least one assessment test based on a predefined format and the second aggregated data set;
executing, by the at least one processor, the at least one simulation test using the first engine and the at least one assessment test using the second engine to generate an intermediate result;
transmitting, by the at least one processor, the intermediate result to a grading module…”
However, Baikalov does not teach using a simulation test in conjunction with an assessment test for two different data sets and then using a second engine to generate an intermediate result prior to the grading module generating the final grading output for the asset.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed on July 02, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “[t]hus, amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 cannot be classified as an abstract idea.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 18). However, the heart of this invention has to grading the risk of an asset, which is financially in nature. The gathering and evaluating of data is ancillary to this purpose. Hence, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., gathering data from various services in order to determine a level of risk of the service).
Applicant also argues that “[p]articularly, these newly claimed details present a distinct ordered combination of elements that integrate the claims into a practical application.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 15). However, the amended claim limitations are not indicative of an integration into a practical application as improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field is not evidenced. The “technical components” that Applicant states that is part of this system are merely generic components that are implementing the abstract idea.
Applicant finally argues that “[a]dditionally, these claims have been amended to recite a particular ordered combination of claimed elements, such that the claimed combination of elements contain an inventive concept.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 16). However, the additional elements, such as: a “processor” “protocol,” and “module” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. Aggregating data and then evaluating it (based on a certain set of parameters) to then determine a result is not a technological improvement.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amit Patel whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights