DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claims 1, 7 and 13. No claims have been added. Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14 and 15 have been canceled. Claims 4-6, 10-12, 16 and 17 were canceled prior to previous office action. Thus, claims 1, 7 and 13 remain pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ..
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 26 June 2925 with respect to:
objection to claims 1, 7 and 13,
rejections of claims 1, 7 and 13 under U.S.C. § 112(a),
rejections of claims 1-3, 7-9 and 13-15 under U.S.C. § 112(b),
rejection to claims 1-3, 7-9 and 13-15 under U.S.C. § 101,
rejections of claims 1, 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore et al (US Pub. No. 20230342491 A1) in view of Crabtree et al (US Pub. No. 20180181599 A1), and
rejections of claims 3, 9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore in view of Crabtree, in further view of Arthur et al (US Patent No. 11,675,921 B2)
have been fully considered. Amendments to claims have been entered.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to claims to overcome claim objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections and, in turn, withdraws objections and rejections.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to, and arguments regarding, claims to overcome 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. However, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility under Step 2A – Prong One contending that “the claims transform transaction data into different types of data and for the creation of models to achieve the specific purpose of fraud detection, thus reciting subject matter eligible material” [remarks page 13]. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is directed to the abstract ideas of organizing human activity as well as mathematical concepts including mathematical calculations. In as much as a limitation recites performing fraud detection on a second transaction, Applicant has not disclosed any specifics on performing this fraud detection.
Applicant argues subject matter eligibility under Step 2A, Prong Two contending that the claims are integrated into a practical application of a judicial exception and recite “significantly more” than the alleged judicial exception [remarks page 13 and 14]. Applicant supports his position citing rulings, inter alia, BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016), contending that the claims are far from routine and conventional [remarks page 14]. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's analogy with the Bascom decision.
Unlike the Applicant’s claimed invention, the inventive concept described and claimed in the ’606 patent is an improvement to technology of customizing filtering websites specific to each end user [BASCOM GLOBAL INTERNET SERVICES, INC., v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, AT&T CORP., page 15]. Applicant’s claims do not discuss websites or any computerized activity beyond those activities in conventional computing – i.e. receiving data, aggregating data, etc. Further, the added limitation of performing fraud detection amounts to only insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. “Performing fraud detection” is specified at a high level of generality (emphasis added) such that an improvement to computer technology is not conveyed.
Rejections have been clarified herein in view of the claim amendments and the January 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – 2019 PEG.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered. In view of Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments, Examiner is unable to locate prior art references that anticipate the claimed invention or renders it obvious.
If, in the opinion of the Applicant, a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the subject application, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the undersigned Examiner at the phone number listed below.
Priority
This application filed 11 March 2022 claims foreign priority to Indian 202111042412, filed 20 September 2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1 is directed to a “method” which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims are directed to the abstract idea of manipulating data which is grouped under method of organizing human activity as well as mathematical concepts including mathematical calculations.
in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p.p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019))). Claims recite:
conducting a first transaction comprising transaction data, wherein the transaction data includes personal identifiable information including an amount of the transaction;
generating local synthetic data from the transaction data of the backend for the first institution, … using a first parameter, wherein the local synthetic data does not include personal identifiable information;
sharing the local synthetic data and the first parameter with “other” institutions of the plurality of institutions, wherein each institution includes a backend;
receiving the local synthetic data and a plurality of parameters from each of the institutions;
aggregating the first parameter and the plurality of parameters from each of the plurality of institutions, wherein the aggregation is performed using federated averaging;
aggregating global synthetic data and the local synthetic data from each of the plurality of institutions using federated averaging;
receiving the aggregated global synthetic data and the aggregated parameter based on the plurality of parameters from each of the plurality of institutions;
training a “model” based on the aggregated global synthetic data and exchanging the first parameter with the aggregated parameter; and
performing fraud detection on a second transaction.
Terms such as:
local synthetic,
global synthetic,
wherein the transaction data includes personal identifiable information, and
wherein the local synthetic data does not include personal identifiable information;
are merely terms which describe data and do not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Terms such as backend merely describe computer systems used to run a company and do not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as:
a federated learning network,
a payment network;
a backend for a first institution of a plurality of institutions,
a federated learning network,
a local synthetic data generating model
a generative adversarial network; and
a fraud detection model
represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of “conducting a transaction, generating local synthetic data, sharing the local synthetic data, receiving global synthetic data from other institutions, training with the global synthetic data, and performing fraud detection”.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
The computer and computer program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities. These functionalities are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). The added limitation of performing fraud detection on a second transaction amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception in that the specifics of the “fraud detection” are not conveyed.
Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of manipulating data using computer technology (e.g. the processor).
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
N.B.: The methods of claim 7 recites similar method steps to those of claim 1 and are hence rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Additional Comments
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 13, in view of pending rejections, the Examiner is unable to locate prior art references that anticipate the claimed invention or renders it obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
CHANG et al: “DISTRIBUTED GENERATIVE ADVERSARIAL NETWORKS SUITABLE FOR PRIVACY-RESTRICTED DATA”, (US Pub. No. 20230186098 A1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F.
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 Applicant wishes to correspond to the Examiner via email, Applicant needs to file an AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT APPLICATION form. The form may be downloaded at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Calvin Hewitt II can be reached at 571-272-6709. 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.
/EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692