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 .
Acknowledgments
The submission filed on 10/13/25 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are pending.
In the Amendment filed on 10/13/25, claims 1-5, 7, 16-17 and 19-20 were amended, and no claims were cancelled or added. (Claims 14 and 15 were cancelled in a previous paper.)
Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
In view of the amendments, the claim objections and the rejections under Section 112 are overcome.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Office responds to Applicant's arguments, as per Applicant's headings in the Response, which are indicated in bold below.
First, Applicant argues that, similar to Example 39 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the independent claims do not recite a judicial exception. In support of this argument, Applicant cites the comments on Example 39 in the Reminders Memo1 (Response, p. 13), sets forth the contents of claim 1 (Response, pp. 13-14), and asserts that "[s]imilar to example 39, the independent claims do not recite a judicial exception" (Response, p. 13), as the contents of claim 1 "'may involve or rely upon mathematical concepts', but 'the limitation does not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols'." (Response, p. 14)
The Office respectfully disagrees.
The Reminders Memo states:
Consider for example, the published USPTO examples 39, which illustrates claim limitations that merely involve an abstract idea, and 47, which shows limitations that recite an abstract idea.10 The claim limitation “training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set” of example 39 does not recite a judicial exception. Even though “training the neural network” involves a broad array of techniques and/or activities that may involve or rely upon mathematical concepts, the limitation does not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols. Contrast this with the limitation “training, by the computer, the ANN based on the input data and a selected training algorithm to generate a trained ANN, wherein the selected training algorithm includes a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm” of claim 2 of example 47. This limitation requires specific mathematical calculations by referring to the mathematical calculations by name, i.e., a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm, and therefore recites a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. (Page 3)
(i) The contents of Applicant's claim 1, as rehearsed by Applicant (Response, pp. 13-14), do indeed "set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols." For example, claim 1 recites "generating … a transaction graph comprising nodes … interconnected by edges." This limitation includes a mathematical relationship ("graph comprising nodes … interconnected by edges") and at least arguably mathematical calculations ("generating … a transaction graph comprising nodes … interconnected by edges"). For another example, claim 1 recites "a first vector of … attributes of the nodes …" and "a second vector of … attributes of ... [another] node." This limitation also includes mathematical relationships ("a first vector …"; "a second vector …"). Therefore, claim 1 is analogous not to Example 39 but rather to Example 47, which recites a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea.
(ii) The claim of Example 39 is directed to a computer-implemented method of training a neural network for facial detection, comprising collecting facial images; transforming the images; creating a first training set comprising the images, the transformed images, and non-facial images; training a neural network in a first stage using the first training set; creating a second training set comprising the first training set and incorrect results of the first training stage; and training a neural network in a second stage using the second training set. As such, the claim of Example 39 is directed to technology and does not include a judicial exception.
In contrast, Applicant's claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method for enabling a transaction-risk evaluation by resource-limited devices, comprising receiving transaction data, analyzing the data (by means of generating a graph based on the data), receiving a request for a potential transaction, determining risk data for the potential transaction (by analysis of the graph), and sending the risk data to a resource-limited device, which evaluates the risk data and decides whether to proceed with the transaction based on the evaluation. As such, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception, specifically, an abstract idea (e.g., evaluating and addressing transaction risk), which falls within "certain methods of organizing human activity," specifically, "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions."
The additional elements of claim 1, for example the "resource-limited device," discussed below, are merely generic computer elements recited at a high level of generality, operating in their normal capacity, not reflecting any improvement in computer functioning or other technology, but rather merely used to apply the abstract idea.
Second, Applicant argues that the claims improve technology, specifically, resource-limited devices (RLDs), which "may comprise user computers … or other IoT devices which have functionality for performing financial transactions, but whose storage and/or processing resources are insufficient for storing and/or processing significant amounts of transaction data to evaluate risk of their potential transactions." Response, pp. 14-15. Applicant presented this argument in the previous response, and the Office responded to it. To reiterate, a computer or IoT device that can perform transactions is an off-the-shelf computer described at a high level of generality, in other words, a generic computer element which, by definition, does not encompass an improvement. Further, Applicant explicitly concedes that the claimed RLDs have a significant deficiency (“whose storage and/or processing resources are insufficient for storing and/or processing significant amounts of transaction data to evaluate risk of their potential transactions”). As described by Applicant, the claimed RLDs are understood to have capabilities that are either equal to or perhaps indeed less than those of generic computers. It is not clear how such claimed RLDs, which are lesser than or at best equal to generic computers, are deemed to represent an improvement in the functioning of a computer or another technology. Therefore, for all of these reasons, Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
Third, Applicant argues again that RLDs constitute an improvement over prior technology, without providing any further support for the argument. Response, p. 15. Therefore, Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
Fourth, Applicant argues that "in view of the above arguments there is certainly a less than 50% chance that the independent claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101." Response, p. 15. However, as explained above, Applicant's preceding arguments are not persuasive. Therefore, Applicant's argument here is not persuasive.
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 1-13 and 16-20 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.
Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are directed to a method, computer system, or computer program product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
Claims 1, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method, computer system, and computer program product for determining and addressing risk of a potential transaction.
For claims 1, 17 and 20 (claim 1 being deemed representative), the limitations (indicated below in bold) of:
receiving, from a financial network, transaction data defining transactions in the financial network;
generating, based on the transaction data, a transaction graph comprising nodes, representing parties to the transactions, interconnected by edges representing the transactions between the parties represented by the nodes;
providing in the transaction graph, for each of at least some of the nodes, at least one risk attribute indicating a measure of risk associated with a party represented by that node;
receiving, from a resource-limited device, a request describing a potential transaction by the resource-limited device, wherein the resource-limited device is capable of performing the potential transaction,
wherein the request, from the resource-limited device, comprises a first vector of risk attributes of the nodes describing the potential transaction;
identifying in the transaction graph at least one counterparty node which represents a counterparty to the potential transaction and that has risk attributes matching those in the first vector;
deriving transaction-risk data dependent on aggregated risk attributes of the at least one counterparty node and a selected set of nodes reachable from the at least one counterparty node via edges in the transaction graph;
sending, to the resource-limited device, a response comprising the transaction-risk data, that has been compressed, for evaluation, at the resource-limited device, of risk of the potential transaction, wherein the response comprises, for each of the at least one counterparty node so identified, the transaction-risk data for that node and an attribute indicating the party represented by that node, and the response includes a second vector of risk attributes of the at least one counterparty node corresponding to risk attributes in the first vector describing the potential transaction;
the transaction-risk data accommodating risk factors associated with the counterparty and other parties with which the counterparty has performed financial transactions;
the resource-limited device evaluating the transaction-risk data in relation to a local risk profile, and assessing the risk attributes in the second vector; and
the resource-limited device deciding how to manage the potential transaction based on results of the evaluating, wherein the resource-limited device decides to proceed or not proceed with the potential transaction with a specific counterparty (claim 1) / wherein the resource-limited device chooses the counterparty with an acceptable risk and a best attribute-match among a choice of counterparties for the potential transaction (claim 17) / wherein the resource-limited device displays results via a user interface for user input on a transaction decision. (claim 20)
as drafted, constitute a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "certain methods of organizing human activity," specifically, "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce, including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks, and "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.A.,B. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 17 and 20 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A - Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 17 and 20 recite the additional elements of a financial network, a resource-limited device, which is capable of performing a transaction, (data that has been) compressed (the foregoing recited in claims 1, 17 and 20), a computer system comprising at least one resource-limited device, one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories and one or more computer-readable storage media, and program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, to perform operations (the foregoing recited in claim 17), and a computer program product comprising one or more computer-readable storage media, and program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more storage media, to perform operations, and displaying via a user interface (the foregoing recited in claim 20), that implement the abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and they are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computer elements performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, even in combination 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. (Step 2A - prong 2: NO. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a financial network, a resource-limited device, which is capable of performing a transaction, (data that has been) compressed (the foregoing recited in claims 1, 17 and 20), a computer system comprising at least one resource-limited device, one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories and one or more computer-readable storage media, and program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, to perform operations (the foregoing recited in claim 17), and a computer program product comprising one or more computer-readable storage media, and program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more storage media, to perform operations, and displaying via a user interface (the foregoing recited in claim 20), to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer elements cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such, claims 1, 17 and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.)
Dependent claims 2-13, 16, and 18-19 are similarly rejected because they further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 17 and 20 as discussed above, and/or do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept such as would render the claims eligible, whether each is considered individually or as an ordered combination.
As for further defining/narrowing the abstract idea:
Dependent claims 2-13, 16, and 18-19 merely further describe: data (claims 2, 19), nodes (claims 3, 4), deriving a risk value by weighting risk attributes (claim 5), weighting risk attributes via averaging (claim 6), providing edges in a graph (claim 7), risk attributes (claim 8), the transaction graph including attributes, and analyzing the transaction graph to derive an indicator (claim 9), providing attributes in the transaction graph (claims 10, 11, 13), identifying in the transaction graph a node and comparing a potential transaction with transactions in the transaction graph, where the risk data depends on a result of the comparison (claim 12), receiving new data and updating the transaction graph based on the new data (claim 16), and deciding how to manage a transaction depending on a response (claim 18).
As for additional elements:
Claims 8 and 16 recite the “financial network.” This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 12 recites the “resource-limited device.” This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 18 recites that “the at least one resource-limited device is adapted” (to decide how to manage a transaction) and “a server.” This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-7, 9-11, 13 and 19 do not recite any additional elements, and accordingly, for the reasons provided above with respect to the independent claims, are not patent eligible.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-13, 16, and 18-19 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, as set forth in the accompanying Notice of References Cited (PTO-892), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Among the cited references:
Kursun (US-20200167785-A1) teaches transaction fraud risk determination (transaction fraud detection/prevention) using graph analysis (nodes and edges representing parties and transactions) including risk attributes and counterparty nodes, and taking account of risk based on history of transactions performed by counterparty node.
Wang (US-20220343329-A1) teaches a vector of risk attributes describing a potential transaction.
Pati (US-20210334822-A1), Arora (US-20220101327-A1), Dong (US-20200349573-A1), Drapeau (US-20230298031-A1), Filliben (US-20190377819-A1), Reddy (US-20190311367-A1), Wadhwa (US-20220020026-A1), Compton (US-20220051264-A1), Dong (US-20220407879-A1), Shekhar (US-20210233080-A1), Levchin (US-20020156724-A1), French (US-20130339186-A1), Galka (US-20210383395-A1), and Poduval (US-20220358507-A1) teach transaction fraud risk determination (transaction fraud detection/ prevention) using graph analysis (nodes and edges representing parties and transactions).
Song (US-20200202219-A1), Shekhar (US-20210233080-A1), and Adjaoute (US-20210248614-A1) teach various aspects of comparing/matching entities such as nodes/transacting parties and/or edges/transactions with/to other such entities, based on attribute vectors or the like (feature vectors, embeddings of attributes, profile comprising attributes, etc.). Adjaoute (US-20210248614-A1) also teaches data compression in the context of transaction fraud risk determination.
Kravitz (US-20190333031-A1) teaches that a device or user attributes can indicate conditions that must be met through attributes possessed by other transaction counterparties as prerequisite to a transaction being considered valid
Michael (US-20130297387-A1) teaches requesting user input via an interactive user interface regarding authorization of a transaction
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS W PINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-4131. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/DWP/
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
1 USPTO Memorandum entitled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" issued on 8/4/25
Prosecution Insights