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 02 February 2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 12-13 and 15-16 are cancelled.
Claims 2, 5, 8-11, 14 and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter in view of the recent Ex Parte Desjardins rehearing decision and the corresponding memorandum. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Ex Parte Desjardins the Examiner in the case did not provide a 101 rejection, but rather a 101 rejection was a new ground of rejection submitted by the board. “This Appeals Review Panel ("ARP") was convened to review the Board's Decision on Appeal ("Dec.") and Decision on Request for Rehearing ("Reh'g Dec."), with particular focus on the Board's new ground of rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).” See Appeal 2024-000567 - Ex Parte Desjardins et al Rehearing Decision Sep 26 2025 at page 1. This new grounds of rejection was later overturned and a Memorandum issued by Deputy Commissioner Charles Kim regarding eligibility particularly when evaluating claims related to machine learning or artificial intelligence. As cited below, these updated are not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and are meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance.
“These updates are not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and are meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance. Indeed, the Ex Parte Desjardins
decision analyzed eligibility in terms of whether the claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under longstanding Federal Circuit precedent in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(l) and 2106.05(a).” Charles Kim Memorandum Page 1 (emphasis added).
“In Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks. The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification. Specifically, the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept). In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).” Charles Kim Memorandum Page 2; to be added to the end of MPRP §2106.04(d)(III) (emphasis added).
As such, the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates. In the instant application, the specification does not provide improvements to any technology as applicant asserts. The specification discloses the nature of the claims’ elements:
“FIELD
[0002] The present disclosure relates generally to machine learning, and in particular to a system and method for real-time detection of fraudulent electronic transaction data processes.
INTRODUCTION
[0003] One of the services offered in online banking is an email money transfer between individuals. It is noted that a majority of the banking fraud cases are observed in email money transfers. Current monitoring systems are only able to detect about half of these frauds cases.”
Thus, applicant’s specification does NOT support the idea that the cited additional elements either separately or in combination amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field as the specification did in Ex Parte Desjardins. The instant case is not analogous to Ex Parte Desjardins.
Applicant argues that the elements which recite the abstract idea when considered as a whole confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, namely identifying fraud in electronic transactions. 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 it is clear that humans in analogous situations have not been asking whether the IP address of a party has been previously used in a transaction, nor whether a transaction was initiated using either a browser or a mobile application, nor whether the recipient of a transaction was specified using their email address, phone number, or both. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
“The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Claiming that the content analyzed is an IP address (i.e. a location), whether or not the transaction was initiated using either a browser or mobile device (i.e. a method of performing the transaction), or whether the recipient of a transaction was specified using their email address, phone number, or both (i.e. a type of information used in authentication), is no more than merely detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment which as cited above are "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296. The fact that said information relates to use of computers amounts to no more than implementing the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The fact that the abstract idea is being implemented on a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible due to being directed to an improvement to computer and network security similar to CosmoKey Solution GmbH v. Duo Security LLC, No. 2020-2043 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2021). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In CosmoKey, the claims described “activation of the authentication function, communication of the activation within a predetermined time, and automatic deactivation of the authentication function, such that the invention provides enhanced security and low complexity with minimal user input.” Cosmokey Sols. GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Sec. LLC, 15 F.4th 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In CosmoKey the invention required “ensuring that the authentication function is normally inactive and is activated by the user only preliminarily for the transaction, ensuring that said response from the second communication channel includes information that the authentication function is active, and thereafter ensuring that the authentication function is automatically deactivated” (Claim 1 of the ‘903 patent). Applicant’s claims do not require user input to turn on or off an authentication function, do not transmit the activation status of an authentication function, is not normally deactivated, and does not ensure deactivation after usage. The case of CosmoKey does not apply.
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 and 17-20 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;”
“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;”
“reject said fraudulent 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.
Dependent claim(s) 5, 8-9, 11, 14 and 17-18 are directed to the following:
Claim(s) 11:
“determining an account proximity score for the real-time email money transaction data.”
Claim(s) 5 and 14:
“traverse at least one classifier tree in said trained model to obtain a fraud score for each classifier tree;”
“aggregate each fraud score for each classifier tree to obtain a total probability of fraud score.”
Claim(s) 8 and 17:
“…wherein the current email money transaction is classified as indeterminate, and the transaction is permitted if an independent rejection is not received after a period of time.”
Claim(s) 9 and 18:
“…wherein the current email money transaction is classified as indeterminate, and the transaction is rejected if an independent allowance is not received after a period of time.”
These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claim which are directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity which include Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices such as Mitigating Risk. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they are directed to abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the 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 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 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;”
The computer components (processor, computer, and memory) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor, generic computer and generic storage) 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 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).)
Dependent claim(s) 11 and 19-20 contain the following additional elements:
Claim(s) 11:
“accessing a trained model;”
Claim(s) 19:
“…wherein said real-time email money transaction data associated with said current email money transaction is receiving using a message queue.”
Claim(s) 20:
“…wherein said receiving said real-time email money transaction data comprises receiving said real-time email money transaction data using a message queue.”
These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as simply accessing) such that they amount 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 and trained ML model 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The processor mentioned above is disclosed in applicant’s specification (see paragraph [0035]). The component is described as: “The processor 104 can be, for example, any type of general-purpose microprocessor or microcontroller, a digital signal processing (DSP) processor, an integrated circuit, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a reconfigurable processor, or any combination thereof.” The memory mentioned above is disclosed in applicant’s specification (See paragraph [0036] of the specification). The component is described as: “Memory 108 may include a suitable combination of any type of computer memory that is located either internally or externally such as, for example, random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), compact disc read-only memory (CDROM), electro-optical memory, magneto-optical memory, erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), and electrically-erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), Ferroelectric RAM (FRAM) or the like.” Therefore, by applicant’s own admission these components are generic computer components.
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 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. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent 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 accessing/obtaining/receiving various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
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.
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