DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-25 have been presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 25, 2026 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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
• “generating, using one or more … functions, a network graph based on a plurality of transactions for a first time interval, … each transaction associated with at least one account of a plurality of accounts, wherein the … functions standardize the plurality of transactions and assign a unique identifier to the at least one account”
• “generating … a respective embedding vector for each of the plurality of nodes, the embedding vectors being for a first time interval”
• “determining, based on the embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes and the second embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes, a respective drift for each node”
• “determining that the drift of a first node of the plurality of nodes is greater than the drift of a second node of the plurality of nodes”
• “flagging a first account corresponding to the first node based on the determination that the drift of the first node is greater than the drift of the second node”
• “determining … based upon the determination that the drift of the first node is greater than the drift of the second node, whether a processing operation is recommended”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass generating a network graph, generating vectors, determining a drift for each node and whether it is greater than another drift, and performing a processing operation of determining whether an account is fraudulent (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The limitations:
• “receiving, by a graph neural network, the network graph comprising a plurality of nodes, each node of the plurality of nodes associated with a respective one of the plurality of accounts”
• “receiving a respective second embedding vector for each of the plurality of nodes, the second embedding vectors being generated … based on a second network graph for a plurality of transactions for a second time interval, each transaction associated with at least one account of the plurality of accounts, the second time interval prior to the first time interval”
• “storing the flag in a record associated with the first account in a storage medium”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, these additional elements amount to mere data gathering and output, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The limitations:
• “by a graph neural network”
• “by an embedding layer of the graph neural network”
• “using one or more extract transform load (ETL) functions”
• “the graph neural network [is] trained using training data comprising a plurality of positive node pairs and a plurality of negative node pairs, each positive node pair comprising a relationship between the nodes in the respective node pair, each negative node pair comprising an artificially generated relationship between the nodes in the negative node pair, the plurality of negative node pairs to bolster training data with limited positive nodes for tuning values of an embedding layer of the graph neural network”
as drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using ETL functions and a neural network and layers thereof (e.g., by using the network as a tool). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities, additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception, or mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities, additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception, and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving and communicating data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The storing limitation also recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually or in combination.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation:
• “wherein the drift is based on a distance in a vector space between the embedding vector and the second embedding vector for the respective nodes”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e). Specifically, the claim recites “wherein the drift is based on a distance in a vector space between the embedding vector and the second embedding vector for the respective nodes”, which is simply additional information regarding the characteristics of the drift; the element does not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element represents additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. Additional limitations which do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation:
• “wherein the drift is based on a cosine similarity of the embedding vector and the second embedding vector for the respective nodes.”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e). Specifically, the claim recites “wherein the drift is based on a cosine similarity of the embedding vector and the second embedding vector for the respective nodes”, which is simply additional information regarding the characteristics of the drift; the element does not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element represents additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. Additional limitations which do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
• “prior to determining the drift for each node: applying a Kalman filter to the embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes and the second embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships and calculations). The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses applying a Kalman filter to vector values (corresponding to mathematical calculations).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
• “generating… a third embedding vector for each of the plurality of nodes based on a third time interval”
• “determining, based on the embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes and the third embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes, a predicted drift for each node;”
• “determining that the predicted drift of a first node of the plurality of nodes is greater than the predicted drift of a second node of the plurality of nodes”
• “performing a processing operation on the first account based on the determination that the predicted drift of the first node is greater than the predicted drift of the second node”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass generating vectors, determining a drift for each node and whether it is greater than another drift, and performing a processing operation (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation:
• “by the graph neural network”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a neural network (e.g., by using the network as a tool). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The limitation:
• “the third time interval subsequent to the first time interval”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e). Specifically, the claim recites “the third time interval subsequent to the first time interval”, which is simply additional information regarding the characteristics of the intervals; the element does not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception or mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
• “determining that the drift of the first node is greater than the drift of each of a subset of the plurality of nodes, the subset of the plurality of nodes within a predefined distance of the first node in a vector space for the embedding vectors”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining whether the drift of one node is greater than those of other nodes (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. See claim 1 analysis.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See claim 1 analysis.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
• “wherein the processing operation further comprises one or more of: (i) initiating a monitoring process on the first account, (ii) performing a risk analysis of the first account, (iii) modifying a budget of the first account, or (iv) modifying a forecast for the first account”
recites a mental process of performing a risk analysis on an account.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. See claim 1 analysis.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See claim 1 analysis.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a storage medium, i.e., a manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites the same judicial exceptions as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The limitation:
• “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer processor, cause the processor to”,
as drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a storage medium. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
With that exception, the analysis is identical to that of claim 1 at this step.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation:
• “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer processor, cause the processor to”,
as drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a storage medium.
With that exception, the analysis is identical to that of claim 1 at this step.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a storage medium, i.e., a manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see corresponding analysis of Claim 8.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation:
• “wherein the drift is based on a distance in a vector space between the embedding vector and the second embedding vector for the respective nodes”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e). Specifically, the claim recites “wherein the drift is based on a distance in a vector space between the embedding vector and the second embedding vector for the respective nodes”, which is simply additional information regarding the characteristics of the drift; the element does not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element represents information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. Additional limitations which do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a storage medium, i.e., a manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see corresponding analysis of Claim 8.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation:
• “wherein the drift is based on a cosine similarity of the embedding vector and the second embedding vector for the respective nodes
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e). Specifically, the claim recites “wherein the drift is based on a cosine similarity of the embedding vector and the second embedding vector for the respective nodes”, which is simply additional information regarding the characteristics of the drift; the element does not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element represents information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. Additional limitations which do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a storage medium, i.e., a manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
• “prior to determining the draft for each node: apply a Kalman filter to the embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes and the second embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships and calculations). The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses applying a Kalman filter to vector values (corresponding to mathematical calculations).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see corresponding analysis of Claim 8.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a storage medium, i.e., a manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
• “generate… a third embedding vector for each of the plurality of nodes based on a third time interval”
• “determine, based on the embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes and the third embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes, a predicted drift for each node;”
• “determine that the predicted drift of a first node of the plurality of nodes is greater than the predicted drift of a second node of the plurality of nodes”
• “perform a processing operation on the first account based on the determination that the predicted drift of the first node is greater than the predicted drift of the second node”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass generating vectors, determining a drift for each node and whether it is greater than another drift, and performing a processing operation (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation:
• “by the graph neural network”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a neural network (e.g., by using the network as a tool). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The limitation:
• “the third time interval subsequent to the first time interval”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e). Specifically, the claim recites “the third time interval subsequent to the first time interval”, which is simply additional information regarding the characteristics of the interval; the element does not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements represent additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception or mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a storage medium, i.e., a manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
• “determine that the drift of the first node is greater than the drift of each of a subset of the plurality of nodes, the subset of the plurality of nodes within a predefined distance of the first node in a vector space for the embedding vectors”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining whether the drift of one node is greater than those of other nodes (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. See claim 8 analysis.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See claim 8 analysis. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a storage medium, i.e., a manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see corresponding analysis of claim 7.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The analysis at this step is identical to that of claim 7.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step is identical to that of claim 7.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites the same judicial exceptions as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The analysis at this step is identical to that of claim 1, with the exception that this claim recites a “computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to [perform the method]”. However, this is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step is identical to that of claim 1, with the exception that this claim recites a “computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to [perform the method]”. However, this is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see corresponding analysis of Claim 15.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation:
• “wherein the drift is based on a distance in a vector space between the embedding vector and the second embedding vector for the respective nodes”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e). Specifically, the claim recites “wherein the drift is based on a distance in a vector space between the embedding vector and the second embedding vector for the respective nodes”, which is simply additional information regarding the characteristics of the drift; the element does not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element represents information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. Additional limitations which do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see corresponding analysis of Claim 15.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation:
• “wherein the drift is based on a cosine similarity of the embedding vector and the second embedding vector for the respective nodes.”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e). Specifically, the claim recites “wherein the drift is based on a cosine similarity of the embedding vector and the second embedding vector for the respective nodes.”, which is simply additional information regarding the characteristics of the drift; the element does not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element represents additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. Additional limitations which do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
• “prior to determining the draft for each node: apply a Kalman filter to the embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes and the second embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships and calculations). The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses applying a Kalman filter to vector values (corresponding to mathematical calculations).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see corresponding analysis of Claim 15.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
• “generate… a third embedding vector for each of the plurality of nodes based on a third time interval”
• “determine, based on the embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes and the third embedding vectors for the plurality of nodes, a predicted drift for each node;”
• “determine that the predicted drift of a first node of the plurality of nodes is greater than the predicted drift of a second node of the plurality of nodes”
• “perform a processing operation on the first account based on the determination that the predicted drift of the first node is greater than the predicted drift of the second node”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass generating vectors, determining a drift for each node and whether it is greater than another drift, and performing a processing operation (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation:
• “by the graph neural network”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a neural network (e.g., by using the network as a tool). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The limitation:
• “the third time interval subsequent to the first time interval”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e). Specifically, the claim recites “the third time interval subsequent to the first time interval”, which is simply additional information regarding the characteristics of the interval; the element does not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements represent additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception or mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Additional information which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the processing operation further comprises one or more of: (i) initiating a monitoring process on the first account, (ii) performing a risk analysis of the first account, (iii) modifying a budget of the first account, or (iv) modifying a forecast for the first account”
“determine that the drift of the first node is greater than the drift of each of a subset of the plurality of nodes, the subset of the plurality of nodes within a predefined distance of the first node in a vector space for the embedding vectors”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass performing a mental risk analysis of a first account and determining whether one drift is greater than others (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. See claim 15 analysis.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See claim 15 analysis. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 21
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
[I]dentifying … a plurality of similarities among the plurality of nodes: This limitation encompasses mentally identifying similarities among the nodes.
[C]lustering … the plurality of nodes into a plurality of groups of nodes based upon the identified plurality of similarities, wherein nodes clustered into a same group share at least one similarity of the plurality of similarities: This limitation encompasses mentally assigning the nodes into groups based on the similarities.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites that the identifying and clustering take place “by the graph neural network”. However, this is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm, as is the further recitation of “training, by the application, a machine learning model using the time series clustering data of a first group of the plurality of groups for determining irregularities of nodes of the first group.” MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim further recites “sending, by the graph neural network to the application, time series clustering data comprising drift time series data of the nodes for each group”. This limitation recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step mirrors that of step 2A prong 2, with the exception that the sending limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, also recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claim 22
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
[G]enerating … vectors for each node in the positive node pair and the negative node pair based on the values associated with the nodes in the positive node pair and the negative node pair: This limitation could encompass the mental generation of the vectors based on values associated with the nodes.
[C]omparing the generated vectors with the corresponding node pairs, the comparison based upon whether the vectors correctly indicate that the corresponding node pair is a positive node pair or a negative node pair: This limitation could encompass mentally comparing the vectors with node pairs based on whether the vectors indicate that the node pair is positive or negative.
[R]efining … weights of the values based upon the comparison: This limitation could encompass the mental refinement of the weights based on the comparison.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites that the generating and refining are performed by “[an embedding layer of] the graph neural network”. However, this is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim further recites “receiving, by the embedding layer of the graph neural network, a vector comprising a plurality of components representing distinct portions of the training data, a first component of the plurality of components representing a positive node pair of the training data and a second component of the plurality of components representing a negative node pair of the training data, the embedding layer comprising values associated with each node in the training data”. This limitation recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step mirrors that of step 2A prong 2, with the exception that the receiving limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, also recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claims 23-24
Step 1: Claim 23 is directed to an article of manufacture and claim 24 is directed to a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite the same judicial exceptions as in claim 22.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. But for the changes in statutory category and accompanying recitations of hardware, which were already considered in the rejection of claims 8 and 15, respectively, the analysis at this step mirrors that of claim 22.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. But for the changes in statutory category and accompanying recitations of hardware, which were already considered in the rejection of claims 8 and 15, respectively, the analysis at this step mirrors that of claim 22.
Claim 25
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites that “the processing operation includes one or more of extending credit and increasing a credit limit, the method further comprising performing the processing operation on the first account corresponding to the first node based on the determination that the processing operation is recommended.” However, these limitations amount to commercial or legal interactions, which are methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See claim 1 analysis.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See claim 1 analysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 25, 2026 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are eligible because (a) generating a network graph and generating an embedding vector for a plurality of nodes are allegedly not practically mentally performable; (b) any judicial exception recited is allegedly integrated into a practical application because they allegedly recite an improvement to a graph neural network’s training mechanism, such improvement being allegedly recited by the specification and reinforced through the amended claims’ recitation that the method is “for tuning values of an embedding layer of the graph neural network”; (c) that the instant claims are allegedly analogous to Ex parte Desjardins and distinguishable from Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. because they allegedly recite an improvement to graph neural networks rather than a use of graph neural networks to perform an abstract idea; (d) that the claims are not merely directed to a use of graph neural networks to flag accounts, but rather to an improvement in graph neural networks themselves; and (e) the claims allegedly contain significantly more than the judicial exception because they recite the unconventional combination of training a GNN with artificially generated negative samples, applying the GNN to generate sets of embedding vectors, and using these embedding vectors to calculate a drift and flag an account. Remarks at 12-21.
Regarding (a), the claims do not indicate what the size of the network graph is, meaning that the graph could potentially be small enough to be drawn with a pen and paper. Nor do the claims specify how the embedding vectors are generated. But for the recitation that their generation is performed by a graph neural network, the embedding could be performed mentally because any embedding, including simple embeddings such as incrementing all elements of the vector by one, is contemplated by the claims.
Regarding (b), the amended limitation does not change the analysis. The amendment merely specifies the intended use of the plurality of negative node pairs is to tune values of an embedding layer of the network and is arguably not entitled to patentable weight. Even assuming arguendo that it is, which Examiner does not concede, the new clause is buried within, and therefore forms a part of, the receiving limitation, which, as the rejection notes, is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. And even if the new clause were entitled to its own separate analysis, it would be a mere recitation of the field of use of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Regarding (c), Examiner maintains that Recentive is more relevant to the instant application than Desjardins because the fundamental import of the claims as a whole is to use a graph neural network trained in a particular way to flag accounts and recommend processing operations on those accounts. The claim is not, fundamentally, about the alleged improvement to graph neural networks. Rather, to the extent that any improvement in graph neural networks is recited, it is only as a means to an end: to flag anomalous accounts. Moreover, Applicant appears to be suggesting that the specific method of balancing negative nodes with positive nodes and generating embedding vectors based on that balanced node set constitute the alleged improvement. But as the rejection notes, those operations are part of the judicial exception itself and cannot provide the inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I). This observation suffices to dispose of argument (d).
Regarding (e), to the extent that the majority of the operations cited by Applicant as allegedly being an unconventional combination constitute part of the judicial exception itself, they cannot be relied upon to provide the inventive concept. Moreover, the question of whether an element is well-understood, routine, and conventional at step 2B only comes into play when the element is deemed insignificant extra-solution activity at step 2A, prong 2. Examiner has provided the appropriate Berkheimer evidence for the limitations in which this is needed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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 RYAN C VAUGHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4849. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a-5:00p ET.
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, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at 571-272-7796. 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.
/RYAN C VAUGHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
