Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 10 December 2025. Claims 21-24, 26-31, 33-38 and 40 have been amended. Claims 1-28 are currently pending. The rejections are as stated below.
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 21-24, 26-31, 33-38 and 40 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.
Claim 21 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for detecting a data anomaly and outputting a data anomaly score for a transaction.
The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of
create for each of a plurality of accounts from historical transaction data, a long term variable (LTV) data set for one or more long term variables (LTVs) associated with each account, the LTV data set representing a historical spending behavior for each respective account over a predetermined time period for card present transactions and card-not-present transactions; periodically retrieve an updated LTV data set for one or more LTVs for each account; and periodically generate a data string for each account, the data string for each account comprising i) a primary account number corresponding to that account and ii) the updated LTV data set for that account, wherein the data string is formatted for generating outputs associated with current transaction data; and a monitoring service implemented at a plurality of locations, the monitoring service configured to receive, from the data warehouse, the data string an account of the plurality of accounts; regularly update one or more models using the updated LTV data set included in the data string for the account, thereby improving output accuracy of the one or more models and eliminating a need to rebuild the one or more models resulting in an increase of processing speed of the one or more models while reducing usage of resources; receive a data anomaly score request from a requestor, wherein the data anomaly score request is associated with a current transaction using the account, and wherein the data anomaly score request includes transaction authorization request data for the current transaction; identify, using the transaction data associated with the one or more LTVs, at least one model of the updated one or more models for analyzing the transaction data; update the data string for the account by inputting the transaction data for the current transaction into the one or more LTVs included in the data string for the account associated with the one or more LTVs; input the updated data string into the identified at least one model, wherein the updated data string enables the identified at least one model to generate an output without having to rebuild the identified at least one model; output a data anomaly score for the current transaction from the identified at least one model; and return, to the requestor the data anomaly score for the current transaction.
The claimed system simply describes series of steps for detecting a data anomaly and outputting a data anomaly score for a transaction. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance that can be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. The 2019 Revised Guidance explains that “mental processes” include acts that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a generic computer component performs the acts. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14. For example, the claims disclose creating files indicating a spending behavior for each of a plurality of accounts over a predetermined time period; receiving the files; periodically updating the data for each of the plurality of accounts; receiving a data anomaly request, calling a plurality of fraud models, and returning a data anomaly score to a requester. These tasks may be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or an opinion) that falls within the enumerated group of “Mental Processes” in the 2019 PEG.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The recited judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using A data warehouse, an interchange network, a memory device, secure hash algorithm, computer models, a web service interface in communication with a monitoring system bridge to perform the steps. The computer/processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including claims 21, 28 and 35. Furthermore, the dependent claims 22-24, 26, 27, 29-31, 33, 34, 36-38 and 40 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Dependent claims 22-24, 26, 27, 29-31, 33, 34, 36-38 and 40, recite additional limitations such as, compressing, by the data warehouse, the data string including the plurality of LTV values for the respective account; and transmitting, by the data warehouse, the compressed data string to the monitoring service at each of the plurality of locations; populating the service call with the data string including the plurality of LTV values for the respective account corresponding to the current transaction, wherein the data string includes a space for each missing or empty LTV in the plurality of LTV values corresponding to the current transaction; wherein the values for each of the plurality of accounts includes first LTV values based on card present transactions involving the account and second LTV values based on card-not-present transactions involving the respective account; and wherein each of the plurality LTV values includes a plurality of lines, each of the lines including the LTV values for a single one of the respective accounts in comma-delimited format…. As mentioned above with respect to the independent claims, the claimed limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a device, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic device to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 21-24, 26-31, 33-38 and 40 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 21-24, 26-31, 33-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Examiner incorporates herein the response to arguments from the previous office actions.
The proposed amendments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant amended the claims to include the above-mentioned steps. The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed above and in the previous office action rejections. The instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution, but rather use the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As analyzed in the rejection above, the use of the computer system is simply a tool for performing the abstract idea. The claimed invention can be performed in an analog manner using pen and paper. The focus of the claimed invention is not on any improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, Applicant submits that the amended claims are eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite a mental process because observations and evaluations may be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. The 2019 Revised Guidance explains that “mental processes” include acts that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a generic computer component performs the acts. For example, the claims recite creating files indicating a spending behavior for each of a plurality of accounts over a predetermined time period; receiving the files; periodically updating the data for each of the plurality of accounts; receiving a data anomaly request, calling a plurality of fraud models, and returning a data anomaly score to a requester. These tasks may be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper.
In addition, Applicant submits that the claims show an integration of the technical improvement into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite an improvement for electronic devices. Training and using a model without disclosing how the model is analyzing the data does not improve the functioning of the computer, or solve any technological problem. Rather, the claim simply includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims do not disclose the algorithm the model is using to detect a data anomaly and outputting a data anomaly score for a transaction – the claims just state that a model gathers data and outputs a result. Therefore, the claims are just using a machine learning model as a processor because no further information about how the analyzing occurs. The claims do not disclose that the model is being improved in any way with the addition of more data or how the model examines the data to show that this model is different from how models have been used before.
The claims generally link the abstract idea and the gathering of information and determining an output based on comparing the gathered information. The claims apply the abstract idea on the computer system at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
What Applicant describes here is how any generic computer process data without stating how or if this transformation is intended to in some way improves the function of the computer itself.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f).
According to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e).
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amended limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however, a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
Furthermore, Example 39 of the USPTO 2019 Guidance does not apply here because the Example 39 does not only involve the training of neural network per se, it includes limitations that does not fall into any of the enumerated abstract categories as recognized by the office. Training neural network using training sets (multiple parameters or attributes) as recited in the Example 39 does not impact eligibility. Applying transformations such as mirroring, rotating, smoothing, or contrast reduction to create a modified set of facial does not fall into any of the aforementioned abstract categories, and the claim is therefore deemed eligible. On the other hand, the instant claimed invention does not recite any elements that individually, or as an ordered combination, transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application of that idea. “At best, the claim[] describe[s] the automation of a concept . . . through the use of generic-computer functions.” OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363. It is well settled, though, that automating conventional activities using generic technology does not amount to an inventive concept. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (explaining that “if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on . . . a computer, that addition cannot impart patent eligibility”) (internal alteration, citation, and quotations omitted); Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1367 (“claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer [does not] provide a sufficient inventive concept”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
As found by the courts “In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly . . ..” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Content Extraction, 2013 WL 3964909, at *12 (“the mere use of a computer to more quickly and efficiently . . . accomplish a given task does not create meaningful limitation on an otherwise abstract and wide-ranging concept”).
The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions. The processor is a general-purpose processor that performs general-purpose functions. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions. Accordingly, claims are ineligible.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action 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 Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691