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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on October 30, 2025 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1-4 and 7-10. Applicant has previously cancelled claims 5-6 and 11-12. Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
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 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03. Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-4), and a machine (claims 7-10). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 (i.e., the method claim) is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
A method of automatically detecting, by an electronic device, an abnormal transaction, comprising:
constructing, by an electronic device, a transaction information database, wherein the constructing of the transaction information database comprises:
(i), by the electronic device, first transaction information from an e-commerce server, through a communication interface of the electronic device the first transaction information including first unique information that is difficult for a user to arbitrarily change, first arbitrary information that a user changes arbitrarily, and an access Internet protocol (IP) address, wherein the first unique information includes at least one of device ID, user ID and payment information, and the first arbitrary information includes at least one of a postal code, delivery address information, contact information, and a name;
(ii) crawling, by the electronic device, a website for an image of a first product of which information is included in the first transaction information,
(iii) collecting, by the electronic device, the image of the first product based on the crawling, and
(iv) constructing, by the electronic device, the transaction information database by including the collected image of the first product as a first product image in the transaction information database;
extracting, by the electronic device, from the first transaction information, a first identifier based on the first unique information;
extracting, by the electronic device, from the first transaction information, a plurality of second identifiers based on the first arbitrary information each of the plurality of second identifiers being different from the first identifier;
generating by the electronic device, a third identifier by combining the plurality of second identifiers extracted from the first transaction information;
generating by the electronic device, a first node based on the first identifier extracted from the first transaction information, generating a second node based on the third identifier generated by combining the plurality of second identifiers extracted from the first transaction information; and generating a third node based on the access IP address; and
connecting by the electronic device, the first node, the second node, and the third node to generate an identity map for automatically detecting the abnormal transaction;
acquiring by the electronic device, second transaction information from the e-commerce server, through the communication interface of the electronic device the second transaction information including second unique information that is difficult for a user to arbitrarily change and second arbitrary information that a user changes arbitrarily;
extracting, by the electronic device, from the second transaction information, a first identifier based on the second unique information;
extracting, by the electronic device, from the second transaction information, a plurality of second identifiers based on the second arbitrary information;
generating by the electronic device, a third identifier by combining the plurality of second identifiers extracted from the second transaction information; and
determining by the electronic device, whether a transaction corresponding the second transaction information is abnormal by searching for each of the first identifier extracted from the second transaction information and the third identifier generated by combining the plurality of second identifiers extracted from the second transaction information in the identity map; and
blocking, by the electronic device, the transaction corresponding to the second transaction information when the transaction corresponding to the second transaction information is determined to be abnormal,
wherein the first transaction information includes information on first accesses of a first user to the e-commerce server by using an IP address and a first user ID, and information on second accesses of a second user to the e-commerce server by using the IP address and a second user ID different from the first user ID,
wherein the method further comprises:
detecting, by the electronic device, the first accesses of the first user to the e-commerce server and the second accesses of the second user to the e-commerce server based on the information on the first accesses and the information on the second accesses,
generating by the electronic device, a table of history data of the IP address used by each of the first and second users based on the first accesses of the first user and the second accesses of the second user, wherein the table of the history data of the IP address includes a plurality of the first user IDs and a plurality of first periods matched with the plurality of the first user IDs, respectively, and a plurality of the second user IDs and a plurality of second periods matched with the plurality of the second user IDs, respectively, wherein each of the plurality of first periods indicates a time period during which the second user accessed the e-commerce server by using the IP address and each of the plurality of second periods indicates a time period during which the second user accessed the e-commerce server by using the IP address,
determining, by the electronic device, that the first user is a same as the second user based on the table of the history, and
detecting by the electronic device, that a transaction using the IP address is abnormal based on the determination that the first user is the same as the second user,
wherein the method further comprises:
identifying, by the electronic device, a feature area in a second product image included in the second transaction information,
obtaining, by the electronic device, a feature descriptor of the second product image by using the feature area in the second product image,
determining, by the electronic device, whether the first product image is identical to the second product image based on the feature descriptor, and
based on the first product image being identical to the second product image,
determining, by the electronic device, the second product image as a stolen image and blocking, by the electronic device, a transaction corresponding to the second product image.
Here, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of collecting transaction data, comparing identifiers, detecting abnormal activity, and blocking a transaction. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g., risk mitigation such as detecting of an abnormal transaction). The claims further recite a Mental Process that can be performed using pen and paper. Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Here claim 1 recites the additional element of an electronic device, a database, an e-commerce server, a communication interface and a user device. Independent claim 7 recites the additional element of an electronic device, a communication module, a memory, a processor, an e-commerce server, a communication interface and a user device. These additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use of electronic device, a communication module, a memory, a processor, an e-commerce server, a database, a communication interface and a user device in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, the 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. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/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 element of using a generic computing component (e.g., a database, electronic device, a communication module, a memory, a processor, an e-commerce server, a communication interface and a user device) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-4 and 8-10 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 8 further refines the abstract idea of identifying patterns to detect fraud by describing how data is managed. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 and 9: further refines the abstract idea of identifying patterns to detect fraud by describing how an abnormal transaction is detected (e.g., based on data). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 and 10: further refines the abstract idea of identifying patterns to detect fraud by determining the abnormal transaction when different first nodes (user) are connected to the third node (IP Address). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objection:
Applicant’s amendments has corrected the previously identified issues. Accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejection Under 35 USC§ 112:
Applicant’s amendments has corrected the previously identified issues. Accordingly, the 112b rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101:
Applicant's arguments filed o 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the underlying idea in claim 1 is not merely an abstract idea such as the method of organizing human activity, each of the operations and the ordered combination of the operations in claim 1 are not purely conventional and the inventive concept is integrated into a practical application. (Amendment pp. 2-5). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing information to detect an abnormal transaction. With respect to Applicant’s assertion that the operation are not purely conventional, the claim recites generic computer functions such as receiving transaction information, extracting identifiers, constructing an identity map, comparing identifiers, determining whether a transaction is abnormal, and blocking the transaction. These steps are described at a high level of generality and do not recite any specific algorithm, specialized structure, or unconventional processing technique that would amount to a technical improvement. For example, the claims relate to collecting and analyzing data and identifying patterns to determine a fraudulent activity. Examiner submits that this process can be performed by a human using pen and paper. As explained above, the use of generic computing (e.g., electronic device) to implement that abstract idea does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims “directed to collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected” were drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea”. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claims directed to an abstract idea because “[t]he advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions” See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For these reasons, the rejection under 35 USC §101 is maintained.
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 KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698