DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Applicant’s submission filed 04 August 2026 [hereinafter Response] has been entered, where:
Claims 1, 2, 13, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 4, 8, 11, and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-17, and 19-21 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-17, and 19-21 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method, which is a process, and thus one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (35 U.S.C. § 101).
However, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites the limitations of “generating, by a processing network computer, a first attribute correlation matrix comprising correlation coefficients, each of correlation coefficient of the first attribute correlation matrix being a correlation value between each set of attributes of a first interaction dataset,” “generating, by the processing network computer, a second attribute correlation matrix comprising correlation coefficients, each correlation coefficient of the second attribute correlation matrix being a correlation value between each set of attributes of a second interaction dataset different from the first time period,” “identifying, by the processing network computer, sets of attributes from the first attribute correlation matrix and the second attribute correlation matrix for further processing, by identifying the one or more sets of attributes that correspond to one another in the first attribute correlation matrix and the second attribute correlation matrix and have a difference in the correlation coefficients between the first attribute correlation matrix and the second attribute correlation matrix greater than a threshold value,” “computing, by the processing network computer, residuals, for the one or more sets of attributes, between the first attribute correlation matrix and the second attribute correlation matrix,” “determining, by the processing network computer, one or more interaction anomalies using the residuals,” “determining, by the processing network computer, a first authorizing entity computer that provided interaction data that contributed to the one or more interaction anomalies, among the plurality of authorizing entity computers,” “identifying, by the processing network computer, a subset of authorizing entity computers from the plurality of authorizing entity computers, wherein the subset includes the first authorizing entity computer,” and “incorporating, by the processing network computer, the one or more sets of attributes used to determine the one or more interaction anomalies into a mitigation message.”
These limitations of “generating,” “identifying,” “computing,” “determining” and “incorporating” are activities that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly are a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), which are one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
The claim recites more details or specifics to the abstract ideas of “generating” in that “[generating . . . a first attribute correlation matrix] . . . , wherein the first interaction dataset is formed from the first interaction data contained in the first authorization request messages,” “[{d) generating . . . a second attribute correlation matrix] . . . , “wherein the second interaction dataset is formed from the second interaction data contained in the second authorization request messages,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea.
Still further, the claim limitation of “computing, by the processing network computer, residuals between the first attribute correlation matrix and the second attribute correlation matrix,” is a mathematical concept, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub I), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include a “processing network computer,” and a “plurality of authorizing entity computers,” which are recited at a high-level of generality, and accordingly, are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim also recites “receiving, by a processing network computer from a resource provider computer via a transport computer, first interaction data of a first plurality of interactions conducted over a first time period by users respectively associated with a plurality of authorizing entity computers,” and “receiving, by the processing network computer from the resource provider computer via the transport computer, second interaction data of a second plurality of interactions conducted over a second time period, which occurs after the first time period, by the users,” which are pre-processing insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim also recites more details or specifics of “receiving . . . interaction data,” “the first interaction data having been transmitted in first authorization request messages compliant with a transaction messaging format during authorization processing of first payment transactions for the first plurality of interactions by the plurality of authorizing entity computers,” and “the second interaction data having been transmitted in second authorization request messages compliant with the transaction messaging format during authorization processing of second payment transactions for the second plurality of interactions by the plurality of authorizing entity computers,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element.
The claim also recites “transmitting, by the processing network computer to the subset of authorizing entity computers, the mitigation message comprising the one or more sets of attributes used to determine the one or more interaction anomalies,” which is a post-processing insignificant extra-solution activity of announcing a result, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites more details or specifics of “transmitting . . . the mitigation message,” “wherein the mitigation message updates an active validation configuration on each authorizing entity computer within the subset of authorizing entity computers,” and “wherein the subset of authorizing entity computers, upon receiving future authorization request messages, apply the one or more sets of attributes in an authorization process for subsequent interaction requests,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include a “processing network computer,” and a “plurality of authorizing entity computers,” which are recited at a high-level of generality, and accordingly, are which is a generic computer component used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim also recites “receiving, by a processing network computer from a resource provider computer via a transport computer, first interaction data of a first plurality of interactions conducted over a first time period by users respectively associated with a plurality of authorizing entity computers,” and “receiving, by the processing network computer from the resource provider computer via the transport computer, second interaction data of a second plurality of interactions conducted over a second time period, which occurs after the first time period, by the users,” which are pre-processing insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to more than the abstract idea.
The claim also recites more details or specifics of “receiving . . . interaction data,” “the first interaction data having been transmitted in first authorization request messages compliant with a transaction messaging format during authorization processing of first payment transactions for the first plurality of interactions by the plurality of authorizing entity computers,” and “the second interaction data having been transmitted in second authorization request messages compliant with the transaction messaging format during authorization processing of second payment transactions for the second plurality of interactions by the plurality of authorizing entity computers,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element.
The claim further recites “transmitting, by the processing network computer to the subset of authorizing entity computers, the mitigation message comprising the one or more sets of attributes used to determine the one or more interaction anomalies,” which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites more details or specifics of “transmitting . . . the mitigation message,” “wherein the mitigation message updates an active validation configuration on each authorizing entity computer within the subset of authorizing entity computers,” and “wherein the subset of authorizing entity computers, upon receiving future authorization request messages, apply the one or more sets of attributes in an authorization process for subsequent interaction requests,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element. Thus, claim 1 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 15 recites a processing network computer, which is a machine, and thus one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (35 U.S.C. § 101).
However, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites the limitations of “generating, by a processing network computer, a first attribute correlation matrix comprising correlations between attributes of a first interaction dataset,” “generating, by the processing network computer, a second attribute correlation matrix comprising correlations between attributes of a second interaction dataset,” “identifying, by the processing network computer, sets of attributes from the first attribute correlation matrix and the second attribute correlation matrix,” “computing, by the processing network computer, residuals between the first attribute correlation matrix and the second attribute correlation matrix,” “determining, by the processing network computer, one or more interaction anomalies using the residuals,” “determining, by the processing network computer, a first authorizing entity computer that provided interaction data that contributed to the one or more interaction anomalies, among the plurality of authorizing entity computers,” “identifying, by the processing network computer, a subset of authorizing entity computers from the plurality of authorizing entity computers, wherein the subset includes the first authorizing entity computer,” and “incorporating, by the processing network computer, the one or more sets of attributes used to determine the one or more interaction anomalies into a mitigation message.”
These limitations of “generating,” “identifying,” “computing,” “determining” and “incorporating,” are activities that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly are a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), which are one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
The claim recites more details or specifics to the abstract ideas of “generating” in that “[generating . . . a first attribute correlation matrix] . . . , wherein the first interaction dataset is formed from the first interaction data contained in the first authorization request messages,” “[{d) generating . . . a second attribute correlation matrix] . . . , “wherein the second interaction dataset is formed from the second interaction data contained in the second authorization request messages and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea.
Still further, the claim limitation of “computing, by the processing network computer, residuals between the first attribute correlation matrix and the second attribute correlation matrix,” is a mathematical concept, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub I), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, claim 15 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include a “processing network computer,” a “plurality of authorizing entity computers,” a “processor,” and a “non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by the processor to perform operations,” which are recited at a high-level of generality, and accordingly, are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim also recites “receiving, by a processing network computer from a resource provider computer via a transport computer, first interaction data of a first plurality of interactions conducted over a first time period by users respectively associated with a plurality of authorizing entity computers,” and “receiving, by the processing network computer from the resource provider computer via the transport computer, second interaction data of a second plurality of interactions conducted over a second time period, which occurs after the first time period, by the users,” which are pre-processing insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim also recites more details or specifics of “receiving . . . interaction data,” “the first interaction data having been transmitted in first authorization request messages compliant with a transaction messaging format during authorization processing of first payment transactions for the first plurality of interactions by the plurality of authorizing entity computers,” and “the second interaction data having been transmitted in second authorization request messages compliant with the transaction messaging format during authorization processing of second payment transactions for the second plurality of interactions by the plurality of authorizing entity computers,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element.
The claim also recites “transmitting, by the processing network computer to the subset of authorizing entity computers, the mitigation message comprising the one or more sets of attributes used to determine the one or more interaction anomalies,” which is a post-processing insignificant extra-solution activity of announcing a result, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites more details or specifics of “transmitting . . . the mitigation message,” “wherein the mitigation message updates an active validation configuration on each authorizing entity computer within the subset of authorizing entity computers,” and “wherein the subset of authorizing entity computers, upon receiving future authorization request messages, apply the one or more sets of attributes in an authorization process for subsequent interaction requests,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element. Therefore, claim 15 is directed to the abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include a “processing network computer,” a “plurality of authorizing entity computers,” a “processor,” and a “non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by the processor to perform operations,” which are recited at a high-level of generality, and accordingly, are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim also recites “receiving, by a processing network computer from a resource provider computer via a transport computer, first interaction data of a first plurality of interactions conducted over a first time period by users respectively associated with a plurality of authorizing entity computers,” and “receiving, by the processing network computer from the resource provider computer via the transport computer, second interaction data of a second plurality of interactions conducted over a second time period, which occurs after the first time period, by the users,” which are pre-processing insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to more than the abstract idea.
The claim also recites more details or specifics of “receiving . . . interaction data,” “the first interaction data having been transmitted in first authorization request messages compliant with a transaction messaging format during authorization processing of first payment transactions for the first plurality of interactions by the plurality of authorizing entity computers,” and “the second interaction data having been transmitted in second authorization request messages compliant with the transaction messaging format during authorization processing of second payment transactions for the second plurality of interactions by the plurality of authorizing entity computers,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element.
The claim further recites “transmitting, by the processing network computer to the first authorizing entity computer, a message comprising the one or more sets of attributes used to determine the one or more interaction anomalies and one or more identifiers for one or more interactions corresponding to the one or more interaction anomalies,” which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim recites more details or specifics of “transmitting . . . the mitigation message,” “wherein the mitigation message updates an active validation configuration on each authorizing entity computer within the subset of authorizing entity computers,” and “wherein the subset of authorizing entity computers, upon receiving future authorization request messages, apply the one or more sets of attributes in an authorization process for subsequent interaction requests,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element. Thus, claim 15 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “transmitting . . . a mitigation message,” “wherein the mitigation message further comprises an identifier for the interaction-payment transaction corresponding to the one or more interaction anomalies that were determined,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. Thus, claim 2 subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1. Claim 17 depends from claim 15. The claims provide more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “determining interaction anomalies,” (claims 1 and 17: “wherein determining the one or more interaction anomalies further comprises applying an isolation forest algorithm to the residuals”), and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 3 and 17 are subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1. The claim recites the further limitation of “storing, by the processing network computer, the one or more interaction anomalies and the sets of attributes.” The activity of “storing” is a post-solution, insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data in memory, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two, and is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.iv), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Thus, claim 5 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13 depend from claim 1. Claim 20 depend from claim 15. The claims recite more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “generating a first attribute correlation matrix,” and “generating a second attribute correlation matrix,” in that (claim 6: “wherein the first interaction dataset and the second interaction dataset further comprise data regarding access to host sites by various user devices”; claim 7: “wherein the interaction data comprises at least an interaction amount”; claim 9: “wherein the first time period and the second time period are each at least one month;” claim 12. “wherein the correlations are correlation coefficients, and wherein the correlation coefficients are determined using Spearman's rho or Pearson's r”; claim 13: “wherein the second attribute correlation set is determined in a same manner as the first attribute correlation set is determined”; and claim 20: “wherein the first and second interaction datasets include data associated with e-mail communications, and the interaction anomalies are SPAM e-mails”), and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 20 are subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 10 depends from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “identifying sets of attributes,” “wherein each set of attributes in the sets of attributes includes exactly two attributes,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 14 depends from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of the “processing network computer,” “wherein the processing network computer is operated by a processing network,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. Thus claim 14 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15. The claim further recites the additional element of an “interaction database,” which is a generic computer component used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two, nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
The claim also recites “wherein the interaction database stores the first interaction dataset, the first attribute correlation set, the second interaction dataset, and the second attribute correlation set,” which is the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two, and further, is the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.iv), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Thus, claim 16 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 19 depends from claim 15. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of ” receiving . . . interaction data,” “wherein the interactions in the first interaction dataset and the second interaction dataset are performed by a user operating a user device and are authorized by the first authorizing entity computer,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea.
Claim 21 depends from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “generating,” “wherein each attribute of the set of attributes of the first interaction dataset and the set of attributes of the second interaction dataset corresponds to an interaction attribute selected from an interaction amount, a device identifier, a token information, an account information, an interaction timestamp, or an interaction counter,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 21 is subject-matter ineligible.
Response to Argument
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
5. In Step 2A, Prong One, “Applicant submits a human mind cannot practically intercept automated streams of electronic transaction data transmitted in authorization request messages compliant with a transaction messaging format, calculate multi-dimensional attribute correlation matrices to isolate specific attribute sets experiencing a shift in correlation coefficients greater than a threshold value, compute mathematical residuals to determine interaction anomalies, and programmatically transmit a mitigation message that reconfigures an active validation layout on a targeted subset of remote authorizing entity computers to alter their physical authorization processing logic upon receiving future authorization request messages. Accordingly, the claims do not recite mental processes.” (Response at pp. 11-12). ” (Response at p. 10).
Examiner’s Response:
Relating to Step 2A Prong One, Examiner submits that the rejections set out above in detail identifies the judicial exception (that is, abstract idea) by referring to what is recited in the claim and explains why it is considered an exception.
As an example, “generating, by a processing network computer, a first attribute correlation matrix comprising correlation coefficients, each of correlation coefficient of the first attribute correlation matrix being a correlation value between each set of attributes of a first interaction dataset.” (see claim 1, lines 8-11). The limitation of “generating . . . a first attribution correlation matrix” is an activity that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly are a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), which are one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
Applicant submits a human mind is not capable to “intercept automated streams of electronic transaction data,” which stands to reason, is not incorrect, and is considered an additional element evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. Also, the use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.” (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III.B). Notably, a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III.C). Further, in the context of computer-assisted methods (e.g., processing network computer, resource provider computer, transport computer), that such claims are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because they speed up human activity.
Accordingly, the instant claims recite an abstract idea, as set out above in detail.
6. In view of Step 2A Prong Two, Applicant submits that the “specification identifies a specific technical problem occurring within high-dimensional transaction data clearing environments where "many anomaly detection tools are impractical to be implemented for high dimensional data, due the data size and complexity of transaction datasets." Specification, [0003]. Applicant submits the present claims resolve this computing bottleneck and improves network security operations by executing a specialized data-processing pipeline that scales with low memory usage and high space-time efficiency.
Specifically, the claims recite ‘generating, by the processing network computer, a first attribute correlation matrix comprising correlation coefficients . . . generating, by the processing network computer, a second attribute correlation matrix . . . identifying, by the processing network computer, one or more sets of attributes from the first attribute correlation matrix and the second attribute correlation matrix . . . [that] have a difference in the correlation coefficients . . . greater than a threshold value; computing, by the processing network computer, residuals, for the one or more sets of attributes .. and determining, by the processing network computer, one or more interaction anomalies using the residuals.’” (Response at p. 13).
Examiner Response:
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the rejection identifies any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea); and evaluate the integration of the judicial exception into a practical application by explaining that the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application using the considerations set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)-(h).
“Integration” may be based on the improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to any other technology or technical field. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). The evaluation requires, [i]n sum, that (1) the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Next, (2) if the specification sets forth such an improvement, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.
By way of example to Desjardins, the MPEP provides under Step 2A Prong Two that “the [Desjardins] 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 [appeals review panel (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).” (MPEP § 2106.04(d) sub III; see “Advance Notice of Change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins” (05 December 2025) at p. 2)).
The solution, however, is data driven, and not based on improving how a machine learning model performs. Generally, the invention is directed to attribute-to-attribute correlations across time-separated interaction datasets, selects attribute set with meaningful correlation shifts, then evaluate residuals for those sets to detect anomalies. In other words, it does not rely only on raw transaction values; it first measures how attributes behave together and then looks for changes in those relationships over time. (See, e.g., Specification ¶¶ 0005, 0042-51).
For example, the instant claims recite additional elements beyond the identified judicial exception including a “processing network computer,” and a “plurality of authorizing entity computers,” which are recited at a high-level of generality, and accordingly, are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Also, the claim recites limitations relating to “receiving” data, and “transmitting” a result in the form of a message, as set out above in detail.
Accordingly, the claims are subject-matter ineligible.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(US Published Application 20210183165 to Zheng et al.) teaches a residual between a pixel value of each pixel of A1 and a corresponding pixel value of each pixel of A2 is calculated to calculate a correlation f. The correlation f is used for evaluating the similarity between A1 and A2, which may be calculated by using a method such as the sum of squared differences (SSD) method or the Pearson correlation method. The homography matrix H2 is optimized according to the correlation f (denoted as H2,0). For example, an adjustment ΔH may be performed on H2, so as to maximize the value of the correlation f.
(US Published Application 20200309930 to Zhou et al.) teaches predicting authentication of a device user based on a joint features representation related to an echo-signature associated with a device is disclosed. The system performs operations that include emitting acoustic signals in response to a request for processing of a profile associated with the device. The system receives a set of echo acoustic signals that are tailored based on reflection of the acoustic signals from unique contours of one or more depth portions associated with the user relative to a discrete epoch. One or one or more region segments associated with the echo acoustic signals are extracted in order to train a classification model. A classification model is generated based on the one or more region segments as extracted. A joint features representation based on the classification model is generated. A vector-based classification model is used in the prediction of the joint features representation. The system determines whether the joint features representation is associated with the echo-signature based on the prediction of the joint features representation.
(Bhuyan et al., “Network Anomaly Detection: Methods, Systems and Tools,” IEEE (2014)) teaches Many network intrusion detection methods and systems (NIDS) have been proposed in the literature. In this paper, we provide a structured and comprehensive overview of various facets of network anomaly detection so that a researcher can become quickly familiar with every aspect of network anomaly detection. We present attacks normally encountered by network intrusion detection systems. We categorize existing network anomaly detection methods and systems based on the underlying computational techniques used.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEVIN L. SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-5964. Normally, the Examiner is available on Monday-Thursday 0730-1730.
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, KAKALI CHAKI can be reached on 571-272-3719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.L.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights