DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 11/24/2025. Claims 2-31 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s benefit claim is hereby acknowledged of the U.S patent application No. 18/811,739, filed on August 21, 2024, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/520,768, filed on August 21, 2023, which papers have been placed on record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/24/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 2, 14 and 21 recite, “receiving, from a user device, an application that includes an identifier associated with an applicant; collecting, from a plurality of online sources, a plurality of attributes associated with the identifier to generate a digital profile for the applicant, the plurality of attributes including a respective value for each of a plurality of online accounts; processing the digital profile through an assessment model to determine a metric for the applicant; and providing, to the user device, validation data for the application based on the metric for the applicant.” This is a process under its broadest reasonable interpretation which represents, receiving an application and an identifier of an applicant, collecting a plurality of attributes associated with the identifier, determining a metric for the applicant and providing validation data for the application based on the metric of the applicant .
The underlying process would be performed exactly the same with in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Thus, all of the limitations are in fact a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity; See MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(II)-(III). While the claims do recite some functional steps, the underlying operations recited in the claim are acts that could be performed mentally and by pen & paper without the use of a computer. Our reviewing court has concluded that mental processes include similar concepts of collecting, manipulating and providing data. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the Federal Circuit held “the concept of . . . collecting data, . . . recognizing certain data within the collected data set,” ineligible); and Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes). However, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). We now turn to USPTO Step 2A, Prong 2, of the Revised Guidance to determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite how the generated digital findings artifact is being used to make the claimed invention qualify as a practical application; such as an application to improve network security. Accordingly both 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 because the claims do not recite any additional elements to make the claim an inventive concept. Accordingly the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-13 depend on claim 2, claims 15-20 depend on claim 14 and claims 22-31 depend on claim 21 and are of consequence rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 2-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6-17 and 19-24 of any patents granted on application No. 18/811,739.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both claiming a common subject matter, “receiving an application and an identifier of an applicant, collecting a plurality of attributes associated with the identifier, determining a metric for the applicant and providing validation data for the application based on the metric of the applicant.”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-31 would be allowable with a terminal disclaimer or rewritten to overcome the Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection, also should Applicant overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this office action.
The closest prior arts made of records are, Thompson (U.S Pub No. 2018/0,365,786 A1, referred to as Thompson), Lim et al. (U.S Pub No. 2019/0,205,885 A1, referred to as Lim) and Tandra (U.S Pub No. 2020/0,082,346 A1, referred to as Tandra).
Thompson discloses a method for verifying the trustworthiness of users in online interactions with comprehensive risk assessment provided on an ongoing basis by a neutral third party. Users who have obtained favorable assessment can communicate this fact to other online users, across various online platforms, in order to give other users peace of mind in dealing with them and to facilitate online transactions and other interactions.
Lim discloses a machine learning engine for fraud detection following link selection may be trained using artificial intelligence techniques. A buyer account may be used to establish and generate a digital gift card having a particular value specified by the buyer. The digital gift card may then be conveyed to another account, such as an email address.
Tandra discloses a method for facilitating verification of employment and/or education credentials provided to an online information service, as well as other user-provided credentialing information. The method includes means of verifying third-party employment, date ranges, titles, coworkers and employers, through input of third-party data, URL cross-referencing and correspondence credentialing data exchanged with the third-party data.
However, regarding claims 2 and 21, the prior art of Thompson, Lim and Tandra when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “collecting, from a plurality of online sources, a plurality of attributes associated with the identifier to generate a digital profile for the applicant, the plurality of attributes including a respective value for each of a plurality of online accounts; processing the digital profile through an assessment model to determine a metric for the applicant; and providing, to the user device, validation data for the application based on the metric for the applicant.”.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of Thompson, Lim and Tandra when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “collect, from a plurality of online sources, a plurality of attributes associated with the identifier to generate a digital profile for the applicant, the plurality of attributes including a respective value for each of a plurality of online accounts; process the digital profile through an assessment model to determine a metric for the applicant; and provide, to the user device, validation data for the application based on the metric for the applicant.”.
Claims 2-13 depend on claim 2, claims 15-20 depend on claim 14 and claims 22-31 depend on claim 21, and are of consequence identified as allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN SAADOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8408. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Mehrmanesh Amir can be reached at 571-2703351. 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.
/HASSAN SAADOUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights