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 .
Status of Claims
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued
examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the
finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/10/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled, and there are no new claims.
Claims 1–20 are pending for examination.
Examiner notes that the claims submitted on 09/20/2024 and 3/10/2025 include 18 claims instead of the 20 claims originally submitted by applicant on 03/26/2021. Examiner believes this to be an error because there is no mention of cancelling claims in the Remarks submitted on 09/20/2024 or 03/10/2025. Furthermore, the Remarks indicate the desire for claims 1–20 to be pending. Therefore, in the interest of compact prosecution, examiner is including claims 19 and 20, as originally filed, in this Action.
Response to Arguments
In reference to 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 03/10/2025, with respect to the § 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, beginning on Pg. 11 in the Remarks, that the newly amended claims do not recite abstract ideas covered by mental processes that can be performed in a human mind. More specifically, applicant argues that “generation of the ‘digital token’ cannot be performed in the human mind or simply by human hand.” Examiner respectfully disagrees (see detailed analysis of the newly amended claims in § 101 below). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C):
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
First, examiner is not construing the limitation of generation of the digital token to be an abstract idea. Examiner contends that the determining and utilizing steps merely identify patterns and use math to detect anomalies, respectively. Put simply under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the detecting step could be a person looking at a screen, which sees sets of data and relates them by a common feature (i.e., abstract idea), and then uses a mathematical model to process the information through the model to detect anomalies (i.e., abstract idea). Examiner notes that generating of a digital token is not abstract, but merely instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and/or existing processes. See a detailed analysis of the newly amended claims in § 101 below.
Applicant argues, beginning on Pg. 11 in the Remarks, that the newly amended claims do not meet the any part of the test for MPEP §2106.05(f). Specifically, applicant argues that “pending claim 1 does not meet test 2 of MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).” Furthermore, applicant argues that “pending claim 1 does not meet test 3 of MPEP §2106.05(f)(3).” Examiner respectfully disagrees (see detailed analysis of the newly amended claims in § 101 below). Examiner notes applicants argument with respect to MPEP §2106.05(f)(1), however, examiner is not relying on that section of the MPEP to reject the argued limitation and therefore is not arguing it at this time. Examiner notes MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), which states in part:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Examiner notes MPEP 2106.05(f)(3), which states in part:
A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (The recitation of maintaining the state of data in an online form without restriction on how the state is maintained and with no description of the mechanism for maintaining the state describes "the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished" and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result). See also O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1854) (finding ineligible a claim for "the use of electromagnetism for transmitting signals at a distance"); The Telephone Cases, 126 U.S. 1, 209 (1888) (finding a method of "transmitting vocal or other sound telegraphically ... by causing electrical undulations, similar in form to the vibrations of the air accompanying the said vocal or other sounds," to be ineligible, because it "monopolize[d] a natural force" and "the right to avail of that law by any means whatever.").
Examiner contends that the actively claimed limitations of dynamically generating a digital token and retraining machine learning models using digital tokens amounts thereby enhancing the model merely invokes computers to perform existing processes. Examiner notes the absence of any significant details regarding how these steps are performed or accomplished other than generically “by the one or more processors.”
Applicant argues, beginning on Pg. 10 in the Remarks, that “Claim 1 recites additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application that the claims are integrated into practical application.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes MPEP 2106.04(d), which states in part:
The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012) (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found ‘‘the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,’’ but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’). Similarly, in a growing body of decisions, the Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims that are ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception (which require further analysis to determine their eligibility) and those that are not (which are therefore patent eligible), e.g., claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.06(b) (summarizing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and other cases that were eligible as improvements to technology or computer functionality instead of being directed to abstract ideas).
However, applicant’s argument, with respect to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, focuses on the abstract ideas themselves, and not the additional steps. These abstract idea limitations include abstract ideas encompassing a mental process and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, nor do the additional steps. The additional steps include generic computer components recited at a high level of generality which are mere instruction to apply the abstract idea, obtaining and providing data which is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood and routine, and processing data through a neural network claimed in a high level of generality which is mere instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers or machinery as a tool to perform existing processes. See § 101 below for detailed analysis.
Examiner notes MPEP 2106.07(a)II, which states in part:
For claim limitations that recite a generic computer component performing generic
computer functions at a high level of generality, such as using the Internet to gather
data, examiners can explain why these generic computing functions do not meaningfully limit the claim. Examiners should keep in mind that the courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about generic computing functions that the courts have found to be mere instructions to implement a judicial exception on a computer, and MPEP § 2106.05(d) for more information about well understood, routine, conventional activities and elements (a relevant consideration only in Step 2B).
Examiner contends that the newly amended limitation of "dynamically generating, by the one or more processors, a digital token to verify the one or more detected anomalies in the particular set of metadata items" is claimed in a generic manner reciting the “by the one or more processors” with a high level of generality which does not meaningfully limit the claim. Moreover, the newly amended limitation “retraining, by the one or more processors, the trained data anomaly-detection machine learning model based on the triggering of the one or more actions and the generating of the digital token to form an enhanced machine learning model” is claimed in a generic manner reciting the “by the one or more processors” with a high level of generality which does not meaningfully limit the claim. As pointed out in § 101 below, the steps of generating tokens based on detected data and retraining learning models based on the detection and token merely invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information. Generating tokens and training models, without more, does not meaningfully limit the claim for the purposes of § 101 and does not provide significantly more.
Thus, the § 101 rejections are maintained
In reference to 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 03/10/2025, with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, beginning on Pg. 15 of the Remarks, that “Goodman only teaches the retraining of a classification tree for the its ‘token classifier’ which is relevant to its ‘token’ and not for another distinct model that uses its alleged token.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes the claimed language versus the argued meaning of the claimed language. For example, the claim limitation “to form an enhanced machine learning model” is not the same as “another distinct model.” Goodman indeed enhances its machine learning model by retraining to fix the errors including the error of not being able to generate appropriate tokens, thereby forming an enhanced machine learning model. See § 103 rejections below for detailed analysis. Examiner contends that by the plain meaning of “to form an enhanced machine learning model,” the broadest reasonable interpretation includes retraining (i.e., fixing the model) an existing model which forms an enhanced model. Furthermore, examiner notes the absence of any detail in the claims surrounding how the purported “distinct model” is formed.
Therefore, examiner maintains the § 103 rejections.
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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1 — Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 1 is directed to a method i.e., a process.
Step 2A — Prong 1 Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“determining, by the one or more processors, a set of features based on the set of metadata items for each electronic document in each set of the plurality of sets of electronic documents”
“utilizing, by the one or more processors, the trained data anomaly-detection machine learning model to analyze a particular set of metadata items of at least one particular electronic document associated with an account of a particular user of the plurality of users to detect one or more anomalies in the particular set of metadata items”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In particular, with the aid of pen and paper, a human can determine features of an electronic document according to metadata and can analyze the electronic document based on the metadata to detect anomalies.
Step 2A — Prong 2 — Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
“storing, by one or more processors of a platform, a plurality of sets of electronic documents associated with a plurality of users, each set of the plurality of sets of electronic documents corresponding to an account of each user of the plurality of users” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data storing. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“generating, by the one or more processors, a set of metadata items for each electronic document in each set of the plurality of sets of electronic documents, the set of metadata items comprising one or more data fields indicative of states of activities associated with each set of electronic documents” — This limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and is the equivalent to mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Generic processing of data to identify features merely invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The BRI of generating metadata is “simple processing” to identify features of a dataset (see present disclosure para [0056]).
“transforming, by the one or more processors, the set of features into a set of feature vectors, each feature vector tagged to indicate a correspondence to a particular anomaly or not” — This limitation is reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f); See also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
“training, by the one or more processors, based at least in part on the set of features vectors, a data anomaly-detection machine learning model to obtain a trained data anomaly-detection machine learning model, the data anomaly-detection machine learning model comprising a set of triggering rules that are configured to determine a plurality of anomalies within a particular set of metadata items” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Training neural networks without sufficient detail regarding the training merely invokes computers as a tool to perform an existing process.
“automatically triggering, by the one or more processors and in response to the one or more anomalies, one or more actions associated with the account of the particular user” — This limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and is the equivalent to mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Triggering events, such as an application or process, merely invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The BRI of one or more actions is any relevant application or process in which actions are performed in response to a detected anomaly, whether in a remedial manner, a preventive manner, and/or other usages (see present disclosure para [0018]).
“dynamically generating, by the one or more processors, a digital token to verify the one or more detected anomalies in the particular set of metadata items” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Generating digital tokens without sufficient detail regarding the generating merely invokes computers as a tool to perform an existing process.
“retraining, by the one or more processors, the trained data anomaly-detection machine learning model based on the triggering of the one or more actions and the generating of the digital token to form an enhanced machine learning model” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Training neural networks without sufficient detail regarding the training merely invokes computers as a tool to perform an existing process.
“configured to transfer one or more electronic documents to an external computing device” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data transferring. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B — Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“storing, by one or more processors of a platform, a plurality of sets of electronic documents associated with a plurality of users, each set of the plurality of sets of electronic documents corresponding to an account of each user of the plurality of users” — This limitation is directed to the activity of storing data which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storing. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves storing information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
“configured to transfer one or more electronic documents to an external computing device” — This limitation is directed to the activity of data gathering and outputting which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves transmitting information over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 2:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1 above). This claim merely recites a further limitation on the storing limitation which is directed to mere data storing. The additional limitation:
“wherein electronic documents of the plurality sets of electronic documents comprise one or more of: textual data, imagery data, audio data, video data, virtual token data, hologram data, augmented reality data, virtual reality data, and Internet of Things (IoT) data” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data storing. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
“wherein electronic documents of the plurality sets of electronic documents comprise one or more of: textual data, imagery data, audio data, video data, virtual token data, hologram data, augmented reality data, virtual reality data, and Internet of Things (IoT) data” — This limitation is directed to the activity of storing data which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storing. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves storing information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(I.), failing step 2B.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 1 — Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 3 depends from claim 1 (see analysis of claim 1 above) which is directed to an method i.e., a process.
Step 2A — Prong 1 Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“wherein the detecting one or more anomalies in the particular set of metadata items comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, whether a risk level associated with the one or more anomalies exceeds a threshold value”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In particular, with the aid of pen and paper, a human can determine whether risk level exceeds a threshold value.
Step 2A — Prong 2 — Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B — Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 1 — Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 4 depends from claim 3 (see analysis of claim 3 above) which is directed to an method i.e., a process.
Step 2A — Prong 1 Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“determining, by the one or more processors, the threshold value based at least in part on the trained data anomaly-detection machine learning model”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In particular, with the aid of pen and paper, a human can determine a threshold value based on data.
Step 2A — Prong 2 — Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B — Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 1 — Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 5 depends from claim 1 (see analysis of claim 1 above) which is directed to an method i.e., a process.
Step 2A — Prong 1 Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“wherein the utilizing the trained data anomaly-detection machine learning model to analyze the particular set of metadata items of the at least one electronic document associated with the account of the particular user of the plurality of users, further comprises: scanning, by the one or more processors, the particular set of metadata items of the at least one particular electronic document associated with the account of the particular user of the plurality of users to detect one or more changes in the particular set of metadata items”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In particular, with the aid of pen and paper, a human can scan (i.e., read) data.
Step 2A — Prong 2 — Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B — Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 1 — Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 6 depends from claim 5 (see analysis of claim 5 above) which is directed to an method i.e., a process.
Step 2A — Prong 1 Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“wherein the detecting one or more anomalies in the particular set of metadata items further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, the one or more anomalies in the account of the user based on the one or more changes in the particular set of metadata items”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In particular, with the aid of pen and paper, a human can determine an anomaly based on changes in data.
Step 2A — Prong 2 — Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B — Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 1 — Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 7 depends from claim 1 (see analysis of claim 1 above) which is directed to an method i.e., a process.
Step 2A — Prong 1 Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“associating, by the one or more processors, the feature vectors with a set of metadata items of historical electronic documents”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In particular, with the aid of pen and paper, a human can associate feature vectors with data items.
Step 2A — Prong 2 — Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B — Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1 above). This claim merely recites further limitations on the automatically triggering limitation which is directed to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. The additional limitation:
“wherein the automatically triggering, by the one or more processors and in response to the one or more anomalies, one or more actions associated with the account of the user comprises: generating a security token, by the one or more processors, in response to the one or more anomalies” — This limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and is the equivalent to mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Generating tokens merely invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process.
“initiating, by the one or more processors, the automatic triggering of the one or more actions associated with the account of the user based on the security token” — This limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and is the equivalent to mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Initiating events, such as triggering an application or process, merely invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 9:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1 above). This claim merely recites further limitations on the automatically triggering limitation which is directed to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. The additional limitation:
“wherein the automatically triggering, by the one or more processors and in response to the one or more anomalies, one or more actions associated with the account of the user comprises transferring of electronic documents of the set of electronic documents of the user” — This limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and is the equivalent to mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Triggering actions, such as triggering an application or process (e.g., transferring files), merely invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 10:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1 above). This claim merely recites further limitations on the training limitation which is directed to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. The additional limitation:
“wherein the data anomaly-detection machine learning model comprises one or more cascade-based models, a cascade-model of the one or more cascade-models comprising a plurality of stages including a first stage associated with a first model and a first detection threshold, and a second stage associated with a second model and a second detection threshold, wherein the cascade-model progresses into the second stage to apply the second model to a second subset of the metadata only when an anomaly is detected in the first stage by applying the first model to a first subset of the metadata” — This limitation is directed to the field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limiting the fields of machine learning models to cascade models.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 11:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1 above). This claim merely recites further limitations on the generating metadata limitation which is directed to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. The additional limitation:
“wherein the activities comprise: credit reporting events, merchant events, financial account events, legal events, municipal regulation events, motor vehicle regulation events, household usage and maintenance events, and healthcare events” — This limitation is directed to the field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limiting the fields of metadata activities.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 12:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 11 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 11 above). This claim merely recites further limitations on the generating metadata limitation which is directed to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. The additional limitation:
“wherein the financial account events comprises one or more new account events and one or existing account events, the one or more new account events comprising a new credit card event, a new personal loan event, a new loan application event, a new car purchase event, a new car loan event, a new mortgage event, a new insurance policy event, a new mobile phone account event, a new utility account event, a new co-signer on a loan event, and a new reverse mortgage event” — This limitation is directed to the field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limiting the fields of metadata activities.
“the one or more existing account event comprising: a credit card event, a payment event, a purchase event, an identity event, an authentication event, a balance event, and a ownership event” — This limitation is directed to the field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limiting the fields of metadata activities.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 13:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1 above). This claim merely recites further limitations on the automatically triggering limitation which is directed to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. The additional limitation:
“wherein the one more actions associated with the account of the user comprise: modifying an access permission to the account associated with the user, delegating another entity to monitor the account of the user, and transferring assets associated with the account of the user to an authenticated transferee” — This limitation is directed to the field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limiting the fields of actions that are automatically triggered.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 14:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 13 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 13 above). This claim merely recites further limitations on the automatically triggering limitation which is directed to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. The additional limitations:
“generating, by the one or more processors, one or more tasks in response to one or more anomalies” — This limitation is reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f); See also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
“notifying, by the one or more processors, one or more of: the user, the another entity, and the authenticated transferee” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“transmitting, by the one or more processors and in response to a confirmation from the one or more of the user, the another entity and the authenticated transferee, the one or more tasks to the one or more of the user, the another entity and the authenticated transferee who sends the confirmation” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“conducting, by the one or more processors, claim transferring based on the one or more tasks” — This limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and is the equivalent to mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Transferring claims merely invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
“transmitting, by the one or more processors and in response to a confirmation the one or more of the user, the another entity and the authenticated transferee, the one or more tasks to the one or more of the user, the another entity and the authenticated transferee who sends the confirmation” — This limitation is directed to the activity of data gathering and outputting which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves transmitting information over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
“notifying, by the one or more processors, one or more of: the user, the another entity, and the authenticated transferee” — This limitation is directed to the activity of data gathering and outputting which is not an inventive concept because it is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). This limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it involves transmitting information over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(I.), failing step 2B.
Regarding claim 15:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 13 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 13 above). This claim merely recites a further limitation on the automatically triggering limitation which is directed to mere instructions to apply. The additional limitation:
“wherein the transferring assets associated with the account of the user to an authenticated transferee comprises verifying identity information of the transferee as matching with a transferee designated at the account of the user for receiving the assets” — This limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and is the equivalent to mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Triggering events, such as an application or process, merely invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.), failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 16:
Step 1 — Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 16 is directed to an system i.e., a machine.
Step 2A — Prong 1 Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
“determine a set of features based on the set of metadata items for each electronic document in each set of the plurality of sets of electronic documents”
“utilize the trained data anomaly-detection machine learning model to analyze a particular set of metadata items of at least one particular electronic document associated with an account of a particular user of the plurality of users to detect one or more anomalies in the particular set of metadata items”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In particular, with the aid of pen and paper, a human can determine features of an electronic document according to metadata and can analyze the electronic document based on the metadata to detect anomalies.
Step 2A — Prong 2 — Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
“one or more processors” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“a memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“store a plurality of sets of electronic documents associated with a plurality of users, each set of the plurality of sets of electronic documents corresponding to an account of each user of the plurality of users” — This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity and is merely data storing. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“generate a set of metadata items for each electronic document in each set of the plurality of sets of electronic documents, the set of metadata items comprising one or more data fields indicative of states of activities associated with each set of electronic documents” — This limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and is the equivalent to mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Generic processing of data to identify features merely invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The BRI of generating metadata is “simple processing” to identify features of a dataset (see present disclosure para [0056]).
“transform the set of features into a set of feature vectors, each feature vector tagged to indicate a correspondence to a particular anomaly or not” — This limitation is reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f); See also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
“train based at least in part on the set of features vectors, a data anomaly-detection machine learning model to obtain a trained data anomaly-detection machine learning model, the data anomaly-detection machine learning model comprising a set of triggering rules that are configured to determine a plurality of anomalies within a particular set of metadata items” — This limitation is reciting generic computer components at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Training neural networks without sufficient detail regarding the training merely invokes computers as a tool to perform an existing process.
“automatically triggering, in response to the one or more anomalies, one or more actions associated with the account of the particular user” — This limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and is the equivalent to mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Triggering events, such as an application or process, merely invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The BRI of one or more actions is any relevant application or process in which actions are performed in response to a detected anomaly, whether in a remedial manner, a preventive manner, and/or other usages (see present disclosure para [0018]).
“dynamically gene