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
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 01 July 2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 12-13, 15-16 and 19-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22 are newly added.
Claims 2, 5, 8-11, 14, 17-18 and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
Applicant argues that the specification identifies a concrete technical problem that in order to be effective, the detection should meet a real-time response requirement before the email money transfer has completed. Examiner notes that while the specification does disclose a concern over existing fraud detection system accuracy, and does disclose real-time response requirements, it is silent as to providing a nexus between these two concerns as the specification is silent as to any concerns over accuracy being due to meeting a particular real-time response requirement (emphasis added). In fact, the specification is silent as to any detail at all as to why existing fraud systems are only able to detect about half of the noted fraud cases. The specification does not provide this nexus that applicant seems to be emphasizing.
Applicant argues that the specification further discloses a technological solution comprising constructing a transaction graph that links data across multiple institutions to capture indirect connections. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP clarifies how additional elements can impose meaningful limits on a recited judicial exception:
“Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II))
Drawing attention to the emphasized section, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. In the current case, regardless of whether or not applicant’s invention improves the recited judicial exception, improving a method, algorithm, or process of a judicial exception absent of any technological modification, would be an improvement to the judicial exception (e.g. via the improvement in the efficiency of the judicial exception), but does not improve computers or technology.
Applicant argues that their claims are eligible for reasons similar to those given in Example 47. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Example 47 references the case of SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. (hereinafter SRI). Therefore for the sake of compact prosecution Examiner will address both together. In SRI, the problem being solved was identified as follows:
“While the interconnectivity of computer networks facilitates access for authorized users, it also increases a network's susceptibility to attacks from hackers, malware, and other security threats. Some of these security threats can only be detected with information from multiple sources. For instance, a hacker may try logging in to several computers or monitors in a network. The number of login attempts for each computer may be below the threshold to trigger an alert, making it difficult to detect such an attack by looking at only a single monitor location in the network.”
The focus of claims were further found to be the following:
“The "focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities"—that is, providing a network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically detect large-scale attacks”. The specification bolstered the court’s conclusion that the claims were directed to a technological solution to a technical problem. “The specification explains that, while computer networks "offer users ease and efficiency in exchanging information," '615 patent col. 1 ll.28-29, "the very interoperability and sophisticated integration of technology that make networks such valuable assets also make them vulnerable to attack, and make dependence on networks a potential liability." Id. at col. 1 ll. 36-39. The specification further teaches that, in conventional networks, seemingly localized triggering events can have globally disastrous effects on widely distributed systems—like the 1980 ARPAnet collapse and the1990 AT&T collapse. See id. at col. 1 ll. 43-47. The specification explains that the claimed invention is directed to solving these weaknesses in conventional networks and provides "a framework for the recognition of more global threats to interdomain connectivity, including coordinated attempts to infiltrate or destroy connectivity across an entire network enterprise."
Similarly, in Example 47 the problem being solved was identified in the following:
“The consideration of whether the claim as a whole includes an improvement to a computer or to a technological field requires an evaluation of the specification and the claim to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). According to the background section, existing systems use various detection techniques for detecting potentially malicious network packets and can alert a network administrator to potential problems. The disclosed system detects network intrusions and takes real-time remedial actions, including dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic from suspicious source addresses. The background section further explains that the disclosed system enhances security by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusions.
The claimed invention reflects this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection. Steps (d)-(f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step (d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f). These steps reflect the improvement 13 described in the background. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.”
Unlike in SRI and Example 47, applicant’s specification is not focused on an improvement in computer capabilities, but rather is focused on implementation of a business practice (i.e. fraud detection, See at least paragraphs [0002]-[0003] of the specification) using generic computer components. The case of SRI and Example 47 are not analogous to the instant application.
Applicant argues various features explicitly define computational architecture for reciting a particular solution to a practical problem by reciting the particular manner in which faster computation is accomplished to achieve real-time fraud detection and prevention. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument of reciting a particular solution to a practical problem by reciting the particular manner in which faster computation is accomplished to achieve real-time fraud detection and prevention is not supported by the specification.
“It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility” (MPEP §2106.05(a)(I))
While it logically follows that at least some of the recited elements could decrease the computation time required for a transaction in an overall sense, the specification makes no mention of being concerned with said steps providing reduction of computation time. The specification makes no discussion of the prior art with respect to improving upon the asserted deficiency of prior systems, rather it merely mentions the system may achieve a particular real-time processing benchmark. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claims are indicative of the asserted improvement to computers, technology, or technical field.
Applicant argues that the claimed improvement is to a technical field and that an improvement in the latency and scalability of a computing system is a technological improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this conclusion as it pertains to the instant claims. As stated above, which Examiner incorporates herein, the specification makes no discussion of the prior art with respect to improving upon the asserted deficiency of prior systems, rather it merely mentions the system may achieve a particular real-time processing benchmark. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claims are indicative of the asserted improvement to computers, technology, or technical field.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 2, 5, 8-11, 14, 17-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites two systems and a method for detecting fraudulent electronic transactions. These are machines and a process which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are found in claim(s) 2 and 10:
Claims 2 and 10:
“construct a transaction graph based on said historical email money transaction data, said transaction graph comprising nodes representing at least one of an email address and/or a mobile number, and said transaction graph comprising edges representing connections between pairs of said nodes, said edges including a number of email money transactions between a respective pair of said nodes and a sum of email money transactions between said respective pair of nodes, said transaction graph capturing indirect connections between clients of said first financial institution;”
“extract features relating to said plurality of email money transactions for a second time period between said senders and said recipients, said second time period being a subset of said first time period, said extracted features including:”
“a novel device flag indicating whether an internet protocol (IP) address has been seen in previous email money transactions between a particular sender and recipient pair,”
“a novel destination flag indicating whether a particular recipient has been seen in previous email money transactions,”
“a device type flag indicating whether a particular email money transaction originated within one of a mobile application and a browser;”
“a destination type flag indicating whether a particular recipient of a particular email money transaction was designated by email address, mobile number, and/or both said email address and said mobile number;”
“generate an enriched historical data set by supplementing said historical email money transaction data with at least one of said extracted features”
“receive,…, real-time email money transaction data associated with a current email money transaction between a current sender and a current recipient, said email money transaction data including an IP address;”
“generate enriched real-time transaction data for said current email money transaction, said enriched data including features extracted … for said current sender and said current recipient, said enriched real-time transaction data comprising at least one of:”
“said novel device flag indicating whether said IP address of said current email money transaction has been seen in previous email money transactions between said current sender and said current recipient;”
“said novel destination flag indicating whether said current recipient has been seen in previous email money transactions;”
“said device type flag indicating whether said current email money transaction originated within one of a mobile application and a browser;”
“said destination type flag indicating whether said current recipient of said current email money transaction was designated by email address, mobile number, and/or both of said email address and said mobile number;”
“score the enriched transaction data.”
“classify said current email money transaction as fraudulent based on said score;”
“responsive to said classifying said current email money transaction as fraudulent, reject said current email money transaction before completion of said transaction.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor” or “a memory comprising instructions nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Mitigating Risk. Mitigating Risk is described when analyzing data to determine a risk of fraud. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claim 2:
“at least one processor;”
“a memory comprising instructions which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:”
Claim 10:
“…by a computer…”
Claim(s) 2 and 10:
“obtain and store email money historical transaction data for a first time period from at least two sources of email money transaction details, said at least two sources comprising a first financial institution and a second data source distinct from said first financial institution, said historical data comprising a plurality of email money transactions labeled as one of fraudulent or valid, each of said email money transactions including sender data and recipient data;”
“storing said extracted features in an SQL relational database in the form of a lookup table, said lookup table being indexed on lookup keys to enable retrieval of said features during real-time scoring;”
“train a machine learning (ML) model based on said enriched historical data set;”
“deploying an instance of said ML model as an application programming interface (API) using a decker container running on a pivotal cloud foundry;”
“…via a message queue…”
“…from said MySQL database…”
“…said scoring comprising generating and sending a request to said API;”
“receive a score for said current email money transaction from said instance of said ML model via said API;”
The computer components (processor, computer, memory, and real-time processing) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor, generic computer, generic storage and generic real-time processing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The obtaining, storing and receiving step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generally obtaining, generally storing and generally receiving) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of a message queue, an SQL relational database with indexed lookup table on lookup keys, machine learning training and usage, API deployment, decker container running on a pivotal cloud foundry, and message requests is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do 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 identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claim 2:
“at least one processor;”
“a memory comprising instructions which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:”
Claim 10:
“…by a computer…”
Claim(s) 2 and 10:
“obtain and store email money historical transaction data for a first time period from at least two sources of email money transaction details, said historical data comprising a plurality of email money transactions labeled as one of fraudulent or valid, each of said email money transactions including sender data and recipient data;”
“storing said extracted features in an SQL relational database in the form of a lookup table, said lookup table being indexed on lookup keys;”
“train a machine learning (ML) model based on said enriched historical data set;”
“deploying an instance of said ML model as an application programming interface (API) using a decker container running on a pivotal cloud foundry;”
“…from said MySQL database…”
“…said scoring comprising generating and sending a request to said API;”
“receive a score for said current email money transaction from said instance of said ML model via said API;”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for storing various data) Storing and retrieving information in memory, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
(for obtaining/receiving various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 5, 8-9, 11, 14 and 17-18 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 21 and 22 further recite benchmarking for real-time processing. The use of benchmarking for real-time processing is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
The claims do 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 identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claims 21 and 22:
“…wherein said receiving said real-time email money transaction data, said generating said enriched real-time transaction data, said scoring said enriched transaction data via said API, said receiving said score for said current email money transaction via said API, said classifying said current email money transaction as fraudulent based on said score, and said rejecting said current email money transaction in response to said classification are performed as an end-to-end process in less than 500 milliseconds.”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The dependent claims contain no elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fang et al. (US 2022/0067752 A1) discloses constructing a transaction graph, and using extracted features to score and process real-time transaction data for fraud.
Huang et al. (US 2021/0217019 A1) discloses constructing a knowledge graph where the nodes represent a primary account number (PAN) or an Interbank Card Association (ICA) number (i.e. equivalent in function to a client card number), and the edges may have multiple attributes wherein the attributes may include a number of transactions and a total amount of transactions.
Boding et al. (US 2014/0089192 A1) discloses determining that a score is indeterminate, putting the transaction data in a review queue, determining a second score if a predetermined time has elapsed and the transaction data has not been reviewed (i.e. neither an independent rejection nor allowance has been received), and determining an outcome for the transaction based on the second score.
Harris et al. (CN 110929840 A) discloses creation of a topological graph using edges and nodes using historical data and machine learning to determine fraudulent events.
Arrabothu et al. (US 2019/0385170 A1) discloses determining whether real-time transaction details indicate a fraudulent transaction by identifying patterns of new transactions in close proximity.
Filliben et al. (US 2019/0377819 A1) discloses using clustering distance metrics to determine whether entities are exhibiting unusual behavior.
Shi et al. (US 2023/0252469 A1) discloses graphical analysis of a knowledge graph between accounts whereby edges may comprise number of transactions as well as total amount associated with the transactions conducted between the two accounts.
Rose (US 2022/0057918 A1) discloses an API request may be made using CURL.
Kim et al. (US 2021/0117977 A1) discloses receiving streamed messages in real time using Apache Kafka message queues and discloses accessing machine learning models via an API.
Cheng et al. (“Graph Neural Network for Fraud Detection via Spatial-Temporal Attention”) discloses learning spatial-temporal features based on graph networks to determine card fraud.
Saka (US 2020/0382400 A1) discloses latency measurement benchmarking requests including low latency requests expected to return responses within 250 milliseconds.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights