DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on May 11, 2026, and is made Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Interviews are “indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application.” MPEP § 713. Accordingly, the following Examiner’s guidance and suggested workflow maximizes this benefit to Applicant by: (1) avoiding back and forth telephone calls for scheduling, (2) permitting Examiner out-of-office notifications to the Applicant when emailing the agenda, and (3) permitting real-time document collaboration and screen sharing.
Interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If an interview is needed more quickly than permitted by the AIR scheduling tool, note this in the AIR remarks for consideration. The Examiner routinely considers such urgent requests when practicable.
An agenda submitted when filing the AIR is strongly encouraged, because Examiners use agendas when determining whether to grant an interview. The AIR has character limits, so send the agenda contemporaneously to James.Miller1@uspto.gov and reference the AIR.
After-Final Interviews Requests are granted only at the Examiner’s discretion and only if disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. MPEP § 713.09. An advance agenda explaining how the interview advances prosecution—e.g., through targeted arguments, identified Examiner error, or proposed claim amendments—is strongly suggested.
For GRANTED requests, expect an email within two (2) business days confirming a date/time slot and collaboration tool access instructions. For DENIED requests, the record will include an explanation for the denial.
The examiner is generally available for interviews, Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
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 .
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 25–33 and 35–44 are pending and examined with Claims 25, 35, and 41 in independent form.
Claims 25, 30, 35, and 41 are presently amended.
Claim 34 is presently cancelled.
No Claims are presently added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Jul. 1, 2022, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.
Response to Arguments
Preliminary Matters:
Applicant characterizes page 8 of the 02/09/2026 action as a suggestion toward allowability. Applicant’s Reply at 11, 20. That passage distinguished Enfish on the ground that “Claim 25 only refers to ‘behavior sorted lists’ and does not claim the BList tuple structure or permutation indexing explicitly” and that the efficiencies described at Spec. ¶¶ 45, 46 are “description level details and not recited by the claims.” Non-Final Act. at 8. This identified what the claims did not recite and did not indicate allowable subject matter. No suggestion under MPEP § 707.07(j) was made. The Examiner further notes that the permutation limitation now added to Claims 25, 35, and 41 was itself rejected as reciting a mental process at page 31 of the same action, as then recited in Claim 34.
The amendment was not applied uniformly across Independent Claims. Claim 25 deleted “generating a numerical value … representing a consistency measure”; “by updating at least a payload”; “based on the linking and payload values”; and “wherein the first weight is updatable and is utilized to determine whether one or more observed behaviors stored in one or more entries in the first behavior sorted list are to be deleted or preserved.” Claims 35 and 41 retain these elements. Claim 41 additionally retains “responsive to a consistency distance measure for the first behavior sorted list and the second behavior sorted list” and “responsive to the linking of the first account and the second account.”
§ 101 Argument
Applicant argues the steps cannot practically be performed in the human mind because they are implemented “by way of the claimed distance models” and operate on an institutional scale. Applicant’s Reply at 17–18.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. None of the amended claims recite a “distance model.” The claims are fully met by two profiles and two behavior sorted lists. Scale is an implementation choice and not a limitation of the claims. NPL Leskovec, §§ 3.1, 3.5 teaches hand calculation of Jaccard distance and is unrebutted by Applicant. The Specification teaches that “[s]et similarity distances such as Jaccard distance can be used to compare A and B based on commonality of entries between the two lists.” Spec. ¶ 43.
Applicant argues the claims recite no mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations and are at most based on mathematical concepts. Applicant’s Reply at 18.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent Claims 35 and 41 expressly recite “generating a numerical value … representing a consistency measure” and all three Independent Claims (25, 35, and 41) recite “recursively compute summary statistics,” “decaying the first weight,” “matching top N keys,” and “generating a first threat score.” The Specification teaches these underlying operations are “mathematical transformations.” Spec. ¶ 33; see also Spec. ¶¶ 43 (Jaccard distance), 44 (Levenshtein distance).
Applicant argues the claims do not recite the organizing human activity exception. Applicant’s Reply at 18–19.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Amended Claims deleted the “prioritizing rules” element, the claims as presently amended recite, “linking a first account associated with the first entity with a second account associated with the second entity”; “generating a first threat score for the first entity as influenced by a second threat score generated for the second entity;” and “wherein suspicious activity associated with the first account is detected or prevented, responsive to the first threat score,” which recites a fundamental economic principle/practice under the organizing human activity exception because a “suspicious activity associated with the first account is detected or prevented, responsive to the first threat score” and “determining that the first account is linked to the second account, “describe[s] concepts relating to the economy and commerce,” such as “hedging … and mitigating risks,” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A), when viewed in light of the Specification. MPEP § 2111. See § 101 rejection below.
Applicant argues the claims, read as a whole and in light of the specification, are directed to an improvement in computer functionality, namely storage efficiency from space-limited behavior sorted lists and reduced false positives, analogous to Enfish’s self-referential table. Applicant’s Reply at 14–18.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The asserted improvements are not in the claims. An alleged improvement must be both described in the specification and reflected in the claims. No Independent Claim recites a space limit, capacity, or tuple structure. Spec. ¶¶ 38, 39. Reduced false positives is an improvement in the accuracy of an analysis (or abstract idea) and not an improvement to the operation of a computer. Enfish turned on claim language that recited the new self-referential table. The space-limited BList in an entity’s profile, Spec. ¶ 38, is well-understood, routine, and conventional in this field as taught by Zoldi, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0228580 (Pub. Date: Sept. 9, 2010) at ¶¶ 23, 41.
Applicant argues the amendment now positively recites “permutation-based indexing” (i.e., “the utilization of first permutations of keys for the first behavior sorted list and second permutations of keys for the second behavior sorted list and matching top N keys from the first permutations of keys and the second permutations of keys”), which the Specification describes as a “particular data architecture” because “the permutations are stored as individual keys in the data store, and a top-N key match against those stored permutations provides for an efficient determination of whether an entity is showing similar favorite behavior to another entity, making the comparison fast enough to be performed for real-time decisioning effecting a deliberate storage space vs. processing time tradeoff, citing Spec. ¶¶ 42–46. Applicant’s Reply at 20.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The asserted improvements are not in the claims. The Specification attributes the asserted O(1) efficiency to storing the permutations “as individual keys in the data store” and “key indexing in a datastore system,” neither of which are recited by the claims. Spec. ¶ 45. The claims only recite the construction of permutations and matching of top N keys, which is not the structure that produces the purported improvement. Spec. ¶ 46 teaches the asserted real-time capability to a “space vs. time tradeoff,” which is unclaimed.
Applicant argues that the recited weight/recency, decay, and permutation-matching rules improve how the computer performs profiling and linking, analogous to McRO. Applicant’s Reply at 19.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The asserted improvements are not in the claims. In McRO, the claims themselves recited very specific rule sets that fundamentally changed how lip synchronization was performed (the output/result). Here, the claims recite “decaying the first weight” and “matching top N keys” with no particular decay function, threshold, algorithm, or value of N. Non-Final Act. 9–10.
Applicant argues the final clause (“wherein suspicious activity … “) ties the claim to a concrete computer-implemented detection or prevention action rather than abstract decision-making. Applicant’s Reply at 21.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The final clause is passive (“wherein”) with no affirmative step and states an intended result of the scoring under MPEP §§ 2103(I)(C), 2111.04.
Applicant argues the claims are similar to USPTO Example 40 because “the consistency measure operates as a profile-level threshold that gates downstream processing, so that costly account linking, threat-score propagation, and rules- triggered detection or prevention of suspicious activity are performed only on accounts whose profiles satisfy the consistency criterion or threshold.” Applicant’s Reply at 22–23.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 40, Claim 1, was eligible as a practical application based on a combination of additional elements that improves collecting network traffic under an explicit condition, (i.e., when the Netflow protocol data is greater than the predefined threshold). Claims 25, 35, and 41 have no similar threshold and is distinguished. “[D]etermining a degree of consistency” does not gate anything. The claim neither recites nor forecloses graph analytics.
Applicant argues that under Desjardins the internal use of mathematical formulas or distance metrics cannot defeat eligibility where the framework as a whole improves computational efficiency. Applicant’s Reply at 21, 22, 25.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not rest on the mere presence of mathematics but rather on the claims reciting the output of mathematics (consistency measure and threats core) as inputs to a decision, without any claimed change in machine operation. Desjardins is inapposite.
Applicant argues the claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology under DDR because it addresses failure to timely detect and prevent dissemination of malicious packets in a transaction network. Applicant’s Reply at 23.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Detecting and prioritizing laundering risk is a compliance problem predating computer networks (Spec. ¶¶ 4, 5) and the Specification teaches the computer as a tool to scale it. Spec. ¶¶ 27–30, 65. “Malicious data packets” appear nowhere in the claims.
Applicant argues the Specification supplies detailed algorithms, data structures and implementation guidance, satisfying MPEP § 2106.05(a). Applicant’s Reply at 24.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under MPEP 2106.05(a), the claims must reflect the improvement. The specifics Applicant relies on are absent from the claims.
Applicant argues the Examiner must supply evidentiary support for non-conventional aspects of each feature of each rejected claim, which he has not done. Furthermore, the combination is novel and therefore cannot be WRC. Applicant’s Reply at 12, 18.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's assertion that the Examiner must supply evidentiary support for each feature of each rejected claim is not consistent with MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III) (“At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.”). The WRC assertion here was directed to the additional elements, Non-Final Act. at 24 and is supported under MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) by Applicant's own specification. Insofar as Applicant contends that the novelty of the claimed combination precludes a WURC finding, the asserted novelty resides in the recited abstract idea, and the abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III). MPEP § 2106.04(I) (citing Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2117 (2013) (“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry.”)); MPEP § 2106.05 (“As made clear by the courts, the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”)
Applicant argues that, as in BASCOM and USPTO Example 34, the ordered combination (space-limited BList with updateable weight, decay bounding storage, permutation of keys with top N matching, consistency gated linking, threat score propagation and threat score driven detection) is a non-conventional, non-generic arrangement in which each process forms the basis for the next. Applicant’s Reply at 21, 22, 24, 25.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. BASCOM’s inventive concept was the non-conventional location of a known filtering tool. Here, the ordered combination is a conventional sequence of data processing operations, and the elements Applicant relies on to make it non-generic are not claimed. Elements that are themselves part of the abstract idea cannot be an inventive concept.
Claim Objections
Claims 25, 35, and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25: It is believed that “second permutations of keys for the second sorted list” is “second permutations of keys for the second behavior sorted list,” consistent with an earlier recitation and Claims 35 and 41.
Claims 35 and 41: It is believed that “responsive to a consistency measure between the first behavior sorted list and the second behavior sorted list” (Claim 35) and “responsive to a consistency distance measure for the first behavior sorted list and the second behavior sorted list” are “responsive to the consistency measure” for antecedent basis to the “generating a numerical score …representing a consistency measure” in the prior limitation. Claim 41 recites a “consistency measure” while the linking limitation recites a “consistency distance measure”. Consistent terminology is requested. Claim 25’s corresponding limitation is rejected under § 112(b) below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 25–33 and 35–44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 25–33 and 35–44: Claim 25 recites “the comparing comprising construction of first permutations of keys for the first behavior sorted list and second permutations of keys for the second sorted list and matching top N keys from the first permutations of keys and the second permutations of keys.” The Specification describes an ordering for entries of a behavior sorted list: entries have a decayed weight (Spec. ¶ 40), “frequently seen favorites are preserved in the list (gated on recency)” (Spec. ¶ 38), with “favorite” as an entry with “a certain rank in the list (e.g., in the top half of the list, i<n/2)” (Spec. ¶ 39) and describing a recurring key being reweighted so that it moves to “the top of the list, in the position of ‘top favorite’” (Spec. ¶ 40). The claims, however, recite the “top N keys” come from permutations. “Permutations of the BList keys (tuples of various lengths) can be constructed, such as (ka 1, ka, ka), (ka 1, ka, ka,), (ka, ka 1, ka,), (ka, ka1 ka,), etc. … [and] are each stored as individual keys in the data store.” Spec. ¶ 45. However, neither the claims nor the Specification establish any ranking among permutations. Thus, it cannot be determined with reasonable certainty (1) whether “top N keys” refers to the N highest-weighted entries of a BList, to a ranking among permutations (not described by the claims or specification), or to individual keys composing a given permutation; (2) how the recited operations relate to the disclosed converse operation in which “[a] match of the top 3 keys (kb,• kb,• kb) from BList B against these keys would indicate similarity with the BLists stored in data store” (Spec. ¶ 45) (i.e., top keys taken from a list and matched against stored permutations rather than taken from permutations of both lists); and (3) whether N keys must be matched from each of the first and second permutations, or N total keys. The variable “N” increases the foregoing ambiguity but is not the basis of this rejection—breadth is not indefiniteness. Independent Claims 35 and 41 are rejected for the same reason. Dependent Claims are rejected based on their dependence from one of the rejected Independent Claims.
Claims 25–33: Claim 25 recites three consistency measures, each introduced by an indefinite article and none defined in terms of the others: (a) comparing one or more entries … to determine a degree of consistency between the first entity and the second entity”; (b) “matching top N keys … based on which it is determined whether the first profile associated with the first entity is consistent with or similar to the second profile associated with the second entity”; and (c) “linking a first account associated with the first entity with a second account associated with the second entity, responsive to a consistency measure between the first profile and the second profile.” Claim 25 contains no step producing the quantity on which the linking step (c) is conditioned (it was cancelled this round) and it cannot be reasonably determined whether Claim 25 requires one determination ((a)), two ((a) and (b)), or three ((a), (b), or (c)), or which of the three possible measures governs the linking step. Thus, the scope of the linking step cannot be reasonably determined. Dependent Claims 26–33 are rejected based on their dependence from Independent Claim 25.
Claims 35–40: Amended Claim 35 recites “the observed behavior added to the first behavior sorted list by adding to the first behavior sorted list a corresponding behavior entry associated with a first weight” and immediately thereafter, “wherein the observed behavior is added to the first behavior sorted list in association with a first weight.” A “first weight” is introduced twice, each with an indefinite article, and the two elements ae associated with two different things: (1) a corresponding behavior entry and (2) and the observed behavior. It cannot be reasonably determined whether the claim requires one weight or two and the later recitations of the first weight in the decaying step, for example, consequently, have two different readings and outcomes. Dependent Claims 36–40 are rejected based on their dependence from Independent Claim 35.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25–33 and 35–44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 25–33 and 35–44: Independent Claims 25, 35, and 41 recite “construction of first permutations of keys for the first behavior sorted list and second permutations of keys for the second [behavior] behavior sorted list and matching top N keys from the first permutations of keys and the second permutations of keys,” which Examiner finds is not supported by an adequate written description of the claimed genus. MPEP § 2163. The issue is the breadth relative to the single disclosed species.
The Specification recites “permutation” in three locations (¶¶ 45, 46)) and describes a materially different operation. (A) “Permutations of the BList keys (tuples of various lengths) … are each stored as individual keys in the data store; (b) matching “the top 3 keys (kb,• kb,• kb) from BList B against these keys would indicate similarity with the BLists stored in data store”; and (c) “[p]ermutations generally contain a small number of keys, from two to five.” Spec.¶ 45. The ordering process at Spec. ¶¶ 38–41 confirms what “top” key is but only for a fixed number of keys in a single list. The claims recite the unbounded genus “top N keys” drawn from permutations of both lists and the Specification does not reasonably convey possession of that genus. Independent Claims 35 and 41 are rejected for the same reason. Dependent Claims are rejected based on their dependence from one of the rejected Independent Claims. For examination purposes, “[E]xaminer [will] consider the subject matter added to the claim in making rejections based on prior art since the new matter rejection may be overcome by applicant.” MPEP § 2163.06.
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 25–33 and 35–44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 25–33 and 35–44 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 25–33 recite “a computer-implemented system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Claims 35–40 recite a “a computer-implemented method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.” Claims 41–44 recite a “non-transitory computer program product storing instructions” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of an "article of manufacture.”
Representative Claim
Claim 35 is representative [“Rep. Claim 35”] of the subject matter under examination. Normal font is used for limitations that recite the judicial exception. Bold font is used to indicate additional elements evaluated under Step 2A, Prong Two (practical application) and Step 2B (significantly more). Italics font is used where necessary to identify intended use limitations1 and underline font is used, as needed, in further describing the judicial exception. Each limitation is identified by a letter designator for use as a shorthand notation when analyzing/referencing each limitation. Rep. Claim 35 recites:
[A] 35. A computer-implemented method for improving predictive capabilities of a machine learning system, the method comprising:
[B] electronically retrieving one or more profiles from a data storage system that stores a plurality of profiles associated with a plurality of behavior sorted lists, at least a first profile out of the plurality of profiles being associated with a first entity from among a plurality of entities;
[C] updating the first profile to recursively compute summary statistics of behavior of the first entity by adding an observed behavior represented by an input data record for the first entity to a first behavior sorted list associated with the first profile, the observed behavior added to the first behavior sorted list by adding to the first behavior sorted list a corresponding behavior entry associated with a first weight; wherein the observed behavior is added to the first behavior sorted list in association with a first weight, and
[C1] wherein the first weight is updatable and is utilized to determine whether one or more observed behaviors stored in one or more entries in the first behavior sorted list are to be deleted or preserved, a stored behavior entry being replaceable with a first observed behavior based on a recency value associated with the stored behavior entry;
[D] decaying the first weight based on addition or deletion of one or more behavior entries to or from the first behavior sorted list, responsive to the one or more behavior entries being associated with the first profile, the one or more behavior entries being different than the corresponding behavior entry associated with the first weight;
[E] comparing one or more entries in the first behavior sorted list associated with the first profile with one or more entries in a second behavior sorted list associated with a second profile, a second entity being associated with the second profile, to determine a degree of consistency between the first entity and the second entity, the comparing comprising construction of first permutations of keys for the first behavior sorted list and second permutations of keys for the second behavior sorted list and matching top N keys from the first permutations of keys and the second permutations of keys based on which it is determined whether the first profile associated with the first entity is consistent with or similar to the second profile associated with the second entity;
[F] generating a numerical value associated with the first behavior sorted list, the numerical value representing a consistency measure between the first behavior sorted list and the second behavior sorted list;
[G] intentionally left blank
[H] linking a first account associated with the first entity with a second account associated with the second entity by updating at least a payload of the first behavior sorted list or the second behavior sorted list, responsive to a consistency measure between the first behavior sorted list and the second behavior sorted list;
[I] based on the linking and payload values of the first behavior sorted list and the second behavior sorted list, generating a first threat score for the first entity as influenced by a second threat score generated for the second entity; and
[J] wherein suspicious activity associated with the first account is detected or prevented, responsive to the first threat score.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 35 recites “[H] linking a first account associated with the first entity with a second account associated with the second entity”; “[I] … generating a first threat score for the first entity as influenced by a second threat score generated for the second entity;” and “[J] wherein suspicious activity associated with the first account is detected or prevented, responsive to the first threat score,” which recites a fundamental economic principle/practice under the organizing human activity exception because associating financial accounts, influencing a risk score from one account to another, and acting on that score to detect or prevent suspicious activity “describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce,” such as “hedging … and mitigating risks.” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). Read in light of the Specification, MPEP § 2111, the recited “entity,” “account,” “threat score,” and “suspicious activity” are banking customer or account, a money laundering risk score, and conduct reportable to regulators. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3 (“money laundering”); ¶ 4 (“US Bank Secrecy Act of 1970”); ¶ 5 (“Suspicious Activity Reports” filing); ¶ 14 (“The input data record is a transaction performed by the entity of interest.”); ¶ 12 (“The anti-money laundering threat score can represent a threat risk that the entity of interest is engaged in money laundering.”); ¶ 69 (“Layering of funds is typically an integral part of the laundering process. If an account interacts with other accounts known or suspected of laundering, this increases the risk of illicit activity, and that account should be flagged as suspicious.”); ¶ 79 (risk score linked and imputed from account 1 to account 2 to account 3). Limitations B–I are the required steps to arrive at generating the first threat score upon which the detection or prevention of suspicious activity in Limitation J is conditioned and therefore, recites the same exception. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Alternatively, Rep. Claim 35 recites the abstract idea exception of mental processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of the generic computer components indicated in bold. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
. . .
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, but for the generic computer components claim language, here, Limitations B–J, recite collecting information (Limitation B) and analyzing it (Limitations C, C1, D, E, E, E1, F, H, I, J), where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. For example, Limitations C and D are mental processes that are practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper as demonstrated by prior art Zoldi, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0228580, ¶¶ 33–43, Table 1 (computation by hand in a Table) (cited on PTO-892). Limitation C1 is also a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to determine whether “a stored behavior being replaceable [future action] with a first observed behavior based on a recency value associated with the stored behavior entry” and “updatable”. Limitation C1 covers any solution to determine whether “a stored behavior being replaceable with a first observed behavior based on a recency value associated with the stored behavior entry” and “updatable” with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which is so broad as to encompass mental processes. Limitation E is a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because collecting and comparing known information (i.e., one entry of a first behavior sorted list and one entry in a second behavior sorted list) are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind under Classen. Limitation E1 is a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to construct permutations of keys in any known way, and because matching top N keys from two sets of permutations is the collecting and comparing of known information under Classen. This limitation was previously analyzed to now-cancelled Dependent Claim 34, which is incorporated herein. Limitation I is a mental process that is practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires merely mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to “generate a first threat score” in the manner claimed. Limitation F is a mental process that is practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to generate a “numerical value” representing consistency between two behavior sorted lists. Limitation F covers any solution to generate a “numerical score” representing a “consistency measure” between two behavior sorted lists with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which is so broad as to encompass mental processes. Limitation H is a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to “link[ ]” one account to another responsive to a “consistency measure.” Linking is broadly interpreted as “associating” one account to another and may be performed by mental association or by pen and paper through, for example, a written note. Applicant’s Specification describes in an exemplary manner that one method for “executing a distance model” could be by calculating a “Jaccard distance”. Spec., ¶ 43. Leskovec, Jure, Anand Rajaraman, and Jeffrey David Ullman. "Mining of Massive Datasets." (2014) (“NPL Leskovec”) is prior art and additional evidence of a human’s ability to calculate a Jaccard distance without the aid of a computer. NPL Leskovec, §§ 3.1, 3.5 (cited on PTO-892). Limitation I is a mental process that is practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires merely mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to “generate a first threat score” and “store the first threat score” in the manner claimed. Additionally, the scope of the claims in view of the amount of data manipulations that are required is further evidence of reasonable manipulation by hand. Limitation J is a mental process that is practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires merely mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to determine that activity is suspicious in view of a score and because the limitation covers any manner of detection or prevention with no restriction on how the result is accomplished.
Additionally2, Limitations C, C1, D, E, E1, F, H, and I recite mathematical calculations, a particular form of mathematical concepts, because under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, said limitations recite a mathematical operation (e.g., Limitations C (“adding”), C1 (“updatable,” “deleted,” “preserved,” “replaceable”), D (“decaying”), E (“comparing”) E1 (“construction of … permutation of keys,” “matching top N keys”) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods (Limitation F (any method), I (any method)) to determine a variable or number (Limitations F (“generating … a numerical value” representing a “consistency measure”), H (“consistency measure”), I (“generating first threat score”)). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)(i) (“performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution, SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 2018), modifying SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”)
If a claim limitation under BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Rep. Claim 35 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements are: the “computer-implemented” performance of the recited method; a data storage system; and the “electronically” performed retrieving of Limitation B.
The recite “behavior sorted lists” and “profile” are claimed only as information/data and are therefore, part of the exception. A "profile" is data ("summary statistics of behavior") and a “behavior sorted list is a set of data entries.” No structure, capacity, or index is recited. Spec. ¶ 32. Alternatively, if they are treated as additional elements, they fail because (1) the space limit, tuple structure and key indexing appear only in the specification. Spec. ¶¶ 38, 39, 45. Unclaimed features cannot supply a [practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(a). (2) they merely hold and supply data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). They are WRC data structures in this field per Zoldi, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0228580, ¶¶ 23, 41.
Regarding the “computer-implemented” performance of the recited method; a data store system; and the “electronically” performed retrieving of Limitation B, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them or describes them using exemplary language as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec. ¶ 94 (These various aspects or features can include implementation in one or more computer programs that are executable and/or interpretable on a programmable system including at least one programmable processor, which can be special or general purpose”); ¶ 33 (“This process of combining the input data record with values saved in the profile through mathematical transformations is known "feature construction".”); ¶ 95 (“"machine-readable medium" refers to any computer program product, apparatus and/or device … "machine-readable signal" refers to any signal used to provide machine instructions and/or data to a programmable processor … machine-readable medium can store such machine instructions non-transitorily, such as for example as would a non-transient solid-state memory or a magnetic hard drive or any equivalent storage medium”); ¶ 96 (“feedback provided to the user can be any form of sensory feedback … and input from the user may be received in any form”); ¶ 96 (any known and generic (exemplary) “computer”).
Regarding the data storage system, Applicant’s Specification does not describe it so Examiner again assumes Applicant intended any known and exemplary storage device. Spec., ¶¶ 15, 86, 28 (“data store system” mentioned by name only). Limitation B describes the “data store system that stores a plurality of profiles associated with a plurality of behavior sorted lists, at least a first profile out of the plurality of profiles being associated with an input data record for a first entity from among a plurality of entities” and communicates with the exemplary computer to retrieve “one or more profiles” (transmitting and receiving data). Limitation C1 describes that some of the data in the data store system might be “deleted” or “preserved” or that a stored behavior entry is “replacable” which is merely receiving and storing data from the exemplary computer. Limitation H recites “updating at least a payload of the first behavior sorted list or the second behavior sorted list,” which Examiner finds occurs in the data storage system and which is merely writing data to a generic data store. At this high-level of claiming, Limitations B, C1, and H merely invoke computers or other machinery in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data or simply add a general-purpose computer or other computer component after the fact to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
To the extent Applicant contends that the “consistency measure” of Limitations E, F and H, or the “construction of … permutation of keys” of Limitation E1 are additional elements, those elements are themselves part of the mental process and mathematical abstract idea exceptions and a practical application cannot be furbished by the abstract idea exception itself. MPEP § 2106.05(I). Additionally, those elements cover any solution to determine a consistency measure with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result.
Limitation A describes the recited method is “computer-implemented” and states the intended purpose of “improving predictive capabilities of a machine learning system.” The intended purpose language does not limit claim scope, and no machine learning system is recited in the body of the claim. This takes a known and exemplary (generic) computer implementation and describes the functions of receiving, storing, and sending data (instructions) between the computer implementation and the recited storage system, which at this high-level of claiming, merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Limitations B–J describe the computer implementation performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception itself simply adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), or generically recites an effect of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 35 is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent Claims 25 and 41 recite the same abstract idea exception as Rep. Claim 35 subject to the following difference, none of which changes the outcome:
Claim 25 recites the additional elements of “at least one processor and a machine readable medium storing instructions” in place of the computer implemented recitation of Rep. Claim 35. Spec. ¶¶ 94, 95 describe these as known and generic exemplary computer components and therefore amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 41 recites the additional element of “[a] non-transitory computer program product storing instructions” and “at least one programmable processor.” Spec. ¶¶ 94, 95 describe these as known and generic exemplary computer components and therefore amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 25 no longer recites “[F] generating a numerical value … representing a consistency measure” and no longer conditions Limitation H on payload updating; Claim 25 instead recites linking “responsive to a consistency measure between the first profile and the second profile” and generating the first threat score “responsive to determining that the first account is linked to the second account.” The exception recited is identical in the organizing human activity and mental process exceptions but a bit narrower in its mathematical concepts exception.
Claim 41 retains Limitations F, H, and I as recited by Rep. Claim 35 and additionally recites Limitation J as conditioned on “responsive to the linking of the first account and the second account.”
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 35 fails Step 2B because the claim as whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
Examiner finds the additional elements of Rep. Claim 35 are elements recognized as well understood routine and conventional (“WRC”) activity in this particular field based on Applicant’s own disclose3. Spec. ¶¶ 15, 28, 33, 42, 43, 44, 46, 62, 86, 94, 95, 96, 97; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Specifically, Applicant’s Specification discloses the recited additional elements (i.e., computer-implementation and a data store system) are generic computer components. The Examiner also finds the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, and processing (e.g., performing mathematical operations on) data, described in Limitations A–J are all normal functions of a generic computer. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The combination is also WRC at the high level of generality recited:
The combination of the additional elements is likewise WRC. A combination of individually well-understood, routine, and conventional elements does not provide an inventive concept unless the combination itself produces an unconventional result or is applied in an unconventional manner. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(2). Here, the combination performs each step in exactly the manner described as conventional throughout Applicant’s own Specification. There is no indication that the combination of these elements operates in an unconventional manner or produces a result that is other than what would be expected from the generic application of these individual components.
Unlike BASCOM, where the claims recited a specific non-conventional arrangement of installing a filtering tool at a specific network location (an ISP server) rather than on individual end-user devices, Rep. Claim 35 does not recite how the elements are combined in a non-conventional way. The claims recite each element at a high level of generality without specifying the particular arrangement or order that constitutes the alleged improvement. At the high level of generality recited, the combination is WRC. Any BASCOM argument fails because nothing in Applicant’s Specification describes a non-conventional ordered arrangement of components that is then recited in the claims. Rep. Claim 35 recites only abstract steps without incorporating any specific technical details for how these elements are performed. A non-conventional arrangement that is described but not claimed cannot supply the inventive concept at Step 2B. Because the claims here recite only generic components performing generic functions at a high level of generality, the claim cannot be an improvement to the computer or another technology. MPEP § 2106.05(f). No inventive concept is present under Step 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, the additional elements of Rep. Claim 35 have been recognized, based on Applicant’s own disclosure, as WRC activity in the field. MPEP § 2106.05(d). These elements do no more than “apply” the recited abstract idea(s) using known computer and computer-related components. See also Step 2A, Prong Two, supra.
Independent Claims 25 and 41 do not provide an inventive concept for the same reasons
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination with the elements of the independent claims. Each dependent claim incorporates all the limitations of its parent Independent Claim and therefore recites the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B, for the following reasons:
Dependent Claims 36, 42 (part), and 26 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims but contains the additional elements of: [A] a data structure that captures statistics of the first entity's behavior. Dependent Claim 26 alone additionally recites [B] wherein the first behavior sorted list is space-limited and improves storage efficiency; and [C] wherein the decaying is performed by way of at least one of an event-average decay, a time- based decay, and a time-to-live decay strategy.
Regarding Limitation A, Applicant’s Specification explains the “profile is a data structure” and “persisted into a data store and is retrieved and updated for each input data record.” Spec., ¶ 32. “[T]he profile does not contain a set of previous records, instead, it uses recursive functions such as exponential decays to compute summary statistics of behavior.” Id. Thus, “values within the profile store long-term and short-term averages of transaction amounts, frequencies of transaction events, and related quantities … [by] combining the input data record [e.g., a single transaction amount] with values saved in the profile [representing summary statistics of behavior, such as, a short-term average of the transaction amount] through mathematical transformations.” Id. at ¶ 33. This method distinguishes historical transactions, which are not stored as claimed, with averages of transaction amounts, for example, which are stored when a new input transaction record is received. Thus, Examiner interprets “a data structure that captures statistics of the first entity's behavior” in view of Applicant’s Specification as the following four steps: (A) receiving an input transaction record (e.g., a single transaction amount); (B) receiving summary statistical values stored in the profile (e.g., short-term average of transaction amounts); (C) calculating a new summary statistical value received in (B) using the received input data record in (A) (e.g., an updated short-term average of transaction amounts); and (D) transmitting and storing the updated summary statistical values. In short, a data structure that captures statistics of the first entity's behavior without storing a record of past activity of the first entity is—merely stored data that is retrieved, mathematically transformed, and then, re-stored. Importantly, any improvement is realized by the abstract idea itself (i.e., the known mathematical concept of recursion)—not in the computer. Accordingly, this limitation merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data or simply adds a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, to automate the manual process of “recursion,” a well-known manual programming technique introduced to second-year, college-level computer science majors at Cal Poly Pomona. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2); see also, Tang, Fang, "CS240 Lecture Notes on Recursion," https://www.cpp.edu/~ftang/courses/CS240/lectures/recursion.htm (Year: 2013); Dr. Daisy Fang's Home Page https://www.cpp.edu/~ftang/ (Year: 2017); and Course Syllabus CS240 https://www.cpp.edu/~ftang/courses/CS240/ (Year: 2016) (citation nos. E**, B**, and A** on IDS filed Sept. 26, 2022).
Regarding Limitation B (Claim 26 only), Examiner further finds that using frequent behavior sorted lists ("BLists") stored in an entity's profile for efficient storage is WURC activity in the fraud detection field, citing Zoldi, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0228580 (Pub. Date: Sept. 9, 2010), ¶ 23 (“Frequent-behavior Sorted Lists are an effective profile-driven analytic technique for fraud detection”), ¶ 41 (“This methodology is essential for fraud detection as a determination of fraud needs to be made on sub-second time scales utilizing profile structures and cannot be based on searches in databases of historical calling behavior.”). Again, the improvement is not in the storage device—it is generic as explained supra. The improvement lies in the abstract idea itself because “values within the profile store long-term and short-term averages of transaction amounts, frequencies of transaction events, and related quantities … [by] combining the input data record [e.g., a single transaction amount] with values saved in the profile [representing summary statistics of behavior, such as, a short-term average of the transaction amount] through mathematical transformations.” Spec. ¶ 33. Storing an average of five transactions (i.e., one average transaction), for example, requires less space than storing five transactions themselves. The storage device is not improved. The method of storing is improved, which is part of the abstract idea exception itself.
Regarding Limitation C (Claim 26 only), the recited decay strategies further limit the abstract idea exception itself. The Specification teaches event-triggered decay, time-based decay, and time-to-live decay as alternative ways of decaying score values. Spec. ¶¶ 76–78. Each is a mathematical operation applied to stored numbers and each requires mere observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion to select and apply. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Therefore, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 27, 37, and 42 (part) all recites “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Dependent Claims 26 (for Claim 27) and 36 (for Claim 37) or Independent Claim 41 (for Claim 42). Dependent Claims 26 and 27, as explained above, further limit the abstract idea of Independent Claims 25 and 35. Dependent Claims 27, 37, and 42 contain no additional elements. Alternatively, to the extent “recursive features” could be considered an additional limitation, “recursive features” do not require a computer and thus, recite a mental process or mathematical concepts exception. Spec., ¶¶ 32, 33; see also, Tang, Fang, "CS240 Lecture Notes on Recursion," https://www.cpp.edu/~ftang/courses/CS240/lectures/recursion.htm (Year: 2013), p.1 (citation no. E** cited on IDS filed Sept. 26, 2022) (recursion features do not require a computer). An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 28, 38, and 43 (part) all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Dependent Claim 27 (for Claim 28), Claim 37 (for Claim 38), and Claim 42 (for Claim 43). Dependent Claims 27, 37, and 42 as explained above, merely limits the abstract idea of Independent Claims. Dependent Claims 28, 38, or 43 contain no additional elements. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 29, 39, and 43 (part) all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Dependent Claim 28 (for Claim 29), Claim 38 (for Claim 39) and Claim 42 (for Claim 43). Dependent Claims 27, 37, and 42, as explained above, merely limits the abstract idea of Independent Claims. Dependent Claims 29, 39, and 43 contain no additional elements not otherwise analyzed. “Recursion” as recited by the claims and taught by Applicant’s Specification, Spec., ¶¶ 32, 33, is the same as “summarizing the frequently-observed behavior of the first profile.” Regardless of this interpretation, “summarizing the frequently-observed behavior of the first profile” is not meaningful for the same reasoning as explained in the discussion of Dependent Claims 26, 36, and 42, supra, because it merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data to automate the process of “recursion” using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 30, 40 and 44 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limits the abstract idea of the Dependent Claims 26, 36, and 42, respectively. Dependent Claims 26, 36, and 42, as explained above, merely limits the abstract idea of Independent Claims. Dependent Claims 30, 40, and 44, contain the additional element of: the data structure captures statistics of the first entity's behavior without storing a record of past activity of the first entity. For the same reasoning as explained in the discussion of Dependent Claims 26, 36, and 42, supra, this additional limitation is not meaningful because it merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data to automate the manual process of “recursion” using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claim 31 recites a “wherein” clause or limitation that further limits the abstract idea of the Independent Claim 25 and contains no the additional elements. Generating an alert based on the determining step recites a mental process but for the recitation of the generic computer components. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claim 32 recites a “wherein” clause or limitation that further limits the abstract idea of the Independent Claim 25 and contains no additional elements. Alternatively, to the extent “recursive features” could be considered an additional limitation, “recursive features” do not require a computer and thus, recite a mental process exception. Spec., ¶¶ 32, 33; Tang, Fang, "CS240 Lecture Notes on Recursion," https://www.cpp.edu/~ftang/courses/CS240/lectures/recursion.htm (Year: 2013), p.1 (citation no. E** cited on IDS filed Sept. 26, 2022) (recursion features do not require a computer). An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claim 33 recites a “wherein” clause or limitation that further limits the abstract idea of the Independent Claim 25 and contains no the additional elements. Payload and the described payload types are merely data. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Conclusion
Claims 25–33 and 35–44 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 55 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
Examiner Statement of Prior Art—No Prior Art Rejections
Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application without using the claims as a roadmap and applying improper hindsight. Independently the claims are obvious, however, the claims as a whole are not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use the claims as a road map to improperly combine the individual obvious prior art elements together. It is noted that the priority date for the claims has support to the application filing date of Mar. 18, 2016. Rep. Claim 25 is representative of all Independent Claims. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are:
Zoldi et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0228580) is pertinent because it discloses “Fraud Detection Based on Efficient Frequent-Behavior Sorted Lists [BLists]”. Title. Zoldi does not disclose generating a first threat score influenced by a second threat score generated for a second entity, storing the first threat score in two different account profiles, and an updatable first weight utilized to determine whether one or more observed behaviors are to be deleted, preserved, or replaced.
Zoldi et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0101937) s pertinent because it discloses “Fraud Detection Based on Efficient Frequent-Behavior Sorted Lists [BLists]”. Title. Zoldi does not disclose generating a first threat score influenced by a second threat score generated for a second entity, storing the first threat score in two different account profiles, and an updatable first weight utilized to determine whether one or more observed behaviors are to be deleted, preserved, or replaced.
Li et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0036672) is pertinent because it discloses generating a first threat score influenced by a second threat score generated for a second entity. Fig. 1. Li does not disclose storing the first threat score in two different account profiles and an updatable first weight utilized to determine whether one or more observed behaviors are to be deleted, preserved, or replaced.
FOR: WO 2011/068797 A1 is pertinent because it discloses determining one or more behavioral baseline (normal risk) scores, each score associated with one or more behaviors and based on financial institution data from multiple financial institutions, monitoring financial institution data to determine deviations from the behavioral baseline (normal risk) score(s), determining a risk score based on risk patterns associated with the data, and transmitting alerts. Abstract. FOR does not disclose storing the first threat score in two different account profiles, and an updatable first weight utilized to determine whether one or more observed behaviors are to be deleted, preserved, or replaced.
NPL: Tang, Fang, “CS240 Lecture Notes on Recursion,” https://www.cpp.edu/~ftang/courses/CS240/lectures/recursion.htm is pertinent because it discloses the basics of the well-known technique of recursion.
NPL: Dr. Daisy Fang's Home Page https://www.cpp.edu/~ftang/ is pertinent because it discloses the background knowledge of a PHOSITA in recursion.
NPL: Course Syllabus CS240 https://www.cpp.edu/~ftang/courses/CS240/ is pertinent because it discloses that recursion is a subject learned in the sophomore year of a typical, college-level, computer science curriculum.
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 JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 PM (EST).
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
2 “It should be noted that these groupings ar e not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping.” MPEP § 2106.04(a).
3 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").
