DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 07/07/2025.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are pending and have been examined.
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
With regard to the 101 rejections, the Applicant’s remarks have been considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserted in pg. 13 that the “amended claims” are similar to Example 47, p. 4, Claim 3, July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. However, the current claims only recited the steps of generating a model, training data using the model, adjusting the model, etc., which are using generic/built-in model to perform a judicial exceptions. The applicant further asserted that “in particular these claims ‘ are not directed to the abstract idea because they also recite additional elements . . . do not see to tie up the abstract idea’ and because the provide a technological improvement to the issues . . . [demonstrate that the claims as a whole clearly do not seek to tie up the abstract idea]”, in which the system actually performs action on the network (based on a hardware regime) rather than on a software product or a model. Moreover, in this current claim, the applicant only added elements to improve a model in order to improve a business function rather than to improve a technology.
In addition, with regard to the Two steps analysis, under Prong Two, step 2A analysis, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. They are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, the claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application under Step 2A prong two.
Under step 2B Prong Two analysis, he limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. They are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, based on the above stated reasons, the 101 is maintained by the Examiner. Please see the 101 rejections below for further details.
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, 11, 20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1, 11, 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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 11, 20 are grouped together. Claim 11 recites, A system for frequent retraining of a machine learning model comprising at least one computing device including a processor, wherein the at least one computing device is configured to: retrieve, from a data store, a plurality of datasets, wherein each data record in each of the plurality of datasets are collected on a single date defined as a number of days previous to a current date, wherein a first of the plurality of datasets is for a first period of less than one day, wherein a second of the plurality of datasets is for a period of less than fourteen days and more than the first period, and wherein a third of the plurality of datasets is for a period of less than ninety days and more than the second period, wherein the plurality of datasets include payment transaction data and fraud tags associated with payment transactions that have been confirmed as fraudulent; generate a challenger machine learning model, wherein the challenger machine learning model is generated from a production machine learning model, and includes variables and variable weights included in the production machine learning model, wherein the variables are derived from an extreme gradient boosting algorithm; train the challenger machine learning model with a combination of the datasets; adjust the variable weights of the challenger machine learning model based on patterns in the plurality of datasets determined by the challenger machine learning model; perform a comparative analysis between the challenger model and the production model by a health check engine, a rule simulation engine, and a scaler optimization engine, a comparative analysis, wherein the output of the challenger model for a corresponding payment transaction input is a fraud score based on a RuleFit model that indicates the payment transaction is fraudulent, wherein the comparative analysis comprises steps including: comparing, by the health check engine, results from the challenger model on historical data from a set time window against the production model using the historical data from the set time window and passes the production model for promotion if a distribution shift of the results does not exceed a predetermined threshold based on checking percentile thresholds, using the Jenson Shannon Divergence test, and checking a weighted transaction decline rate check and a weighted volume decline rate check at 25 and 50 basis point thresholds for the results; substituting, by the rule simulation engine, the fraud score for one or more rules of the production model, wherein each transaction in the historical data is processed through each rule of a plurality of rules with more than one scaler value over a range of scaler values for each of a fraud score scaler and a ROI value scaler to produce a rule output population; simulating, by the rule simulation engine, the plurality of rules as they relate to dial segments, wherein the dial segments each represent a type of transaction that comprises a presence of a card and a card reader, an internet transaction, and a chip-on- chip transaction, wherein each dial segment is associated with a risk tolerance; determining, by the scaler optimization engine, one or more scaler settings for each rule of the rule output population that produces an optimal transaction decline rate of the challenger model based on how many transactions would be declined and an amount of fraud detected and passing the challenger model if the optimal transaction decline rate is above a decline rate threshold; promote the challenger model to a production environment based on the comparative analysis; and generate, with the challenger model, a point estimate for a payment transaction, wherein the point estimate represents fraud probability based on recent fraud data and existing trees, variable weights can be shifted to provide more weight to a tree split that has been tagged as fraud more in recent timeframes. The limitations are directed to fundamental economic practices (financial predictive model). Hence, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as challenger machine model, at least a computing device, at least a processor. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (retrieving , training, adjusting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1, 11, 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving and identifying data are merely additional elements performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). Given the above reasons, the system performing financial predictive model is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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, Mike W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3600