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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in replied to the amendment filed on 06/03/2026.
Claims 1, 11, 12, 17, 24 and 25 have been amended.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 9 and 16 were previously canceled.
Claims 21-25 were added.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-15, and 17-25 have been examined and are pending.
Remarks
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued on page 11 that “[the] claims are integrated into a practical application and directed to an improvement to the technical field of anomaly detection using artificial intelligence models . . . ” & “[applicant] respectfully submits that, consistent with the reasoning in Ex parte Desjardins and the December 5, 2025 Memorandum, Applicant’s claims also are not directed to an ineligible abstract idea, but rather recite additional elements that amount to a technological improvement in the field of anomaly detection with respect to machine learning.” However, the use of additional elements such as “machine learning” to detect and determine an anomaly from a host of database is not an improvement to technology. Rather, it is leveraging the use of an existing technology to improve a business process such as processing a batch of transaction. Hence, the amended limitation is directed to an abstract idea of detecting fraudulent transaction rather than showing a technical improvement. In Step 2A – Prong Two, the limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Similarly, in Step 2B Prong Two, the Applicant asserted that the elements amounted to significantly more than an abstract idea by citing the combination of the amended limitations using machine learning to detect a probability of fraudulent transactions. However, The limitations are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, the claim does not amount to “significantly more” nor the limitations are indicative of an inventive concept.
Given the above reasoning, the 101 rejection is maintained.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the applicant’s arguments have been considered and they are persuasive. The applicant asserted on page 15 that the “applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite ‘retrieving from a database, by the server computer system, one or more batch feature . . . processing of the historical event data is computationally more expensive than real time processing of the one or more real time features.” The amendment in light of the cited art and arguments is persuasive as it rendered the scope narrow and specific for the purpose of overcoming the obviousness type rationale.
Unser teaches a system for analyzing data comprising: an input module for receiving a transaction record corresponding to a product purchase; a database for storing the transaction received by the input module; a computerized predictive model for determining an indicator for the transaction record based on at least one of a customer identifier, a class of merchant, an amount of the transaction, and a terminal identifier, wherein the indicator is indicative of a likelihood of a correct product determination; and one or more processors for: executing the predictive models; and processing the transaction record based upon the indicator determined by the computerized predictive model.
Manapat teaches Systems, methods, and apparatuses for implementing user customizable risk management tools with statistical modeling and a recommendation engine within a computing environment are provided. A system may include, for example, means for evaluating the performance of a user rule for fraud prevention, in which the system receives a plurality of purchase transactions for the user; analyzes each purchase transaction received to generate a fraud likelihood score; receives the rule that specifies conditions when the system is to accept or reject transactions regardless of the fraud likelihood score generated by the system; transmits a historical analysis to the user based on the received rule; receives an input from the user to activate the rule; monitors performance of the rule; and transmits a recommendation to the user to retain or cancel the activated rule based on the monitored performance. Other related embodiments are disclosed.
Beck teaches a system comprises a database configured to store at least one record, at least one network communication device, a storage device comprising instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform a method. The method may comprise receiving a fraud communication associated with a first primary account number, calculating one or more limitations associated with the first primary account number based on an account associated with the first primary account number, and storing a database record including the first primary account number, a new primary account number, and the limitation(s). The method may further comprise receiving a transaction request including a second primary account number, and comparing the second primary account number to the at least one record. The method may also comprise, based on the comparing, enabling the transaction request to proceed, declining the transaction, or disabling the first primary account number.
None of the cited references, individually or in combination, could establish the prima facie case for obviousness rejection. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
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 1-3, 5, 8-15, and 17-25 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-15, and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, Method of Organizing Human Activity. 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.
Claim 1, 11 and 17 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, recites, in part, A method for a server computer system for event anomaly detection using real-time data and offline data, the method comprising: detecting, at the server computer system, a request to perform an event over a computer network between a first computing system and a second computing system operated by a user; subsequent to detecting the request, determining, in real time, by the server computer system, one or more real time features corresponding to the event; retrieving from a database, by the server computer system, one or more batch features that correspond to one or more attributes associated with the event, the one or more batch features being based on aggregation of historical event data from a plurality of disparate sources and being generated at a time before detection of the request, wherein processing of the historical event data is computationally more expensive than real time processing of the one or more real time features; generating a feature set representing a difference between a historical behavior of the user and a behavior of the user in real time based on the one or more real-time features and the one or more batch features; invoking, by the server computer system, a machine learning model to estimate an anomaly score of the event based on the one or more real time features, the one or more batch features, and the feature set; determining, by the server computer system, whether the anomaly score of the event is higher than a first threshold, or higher than a second threshold and lower than the first threshold; and either (1) blocking, by the server computer system, the first computing system and the second computing system from performing the event over the computer network when the anomaly score of the event is higher than the first threshold; or (2) transmitting, to the second computing system, a notification that causes the second computing system to request additional authentication from the user, when the anomaly score of the event is higher than the second threshold and lower than the first threshold. The claims are directed to business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, it falls within the Certain Method 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 non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a memory, a server computer system, one or more processors, a machine learning model recited at a high-level of generality (detecting, determining, performing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an 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 and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are merely 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). Given the above reasons claims 1, 11 and 17 do not recite an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2, 12, 18 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite an abstract idea of performing grouping of batch features and attributes and such performing of abstract idea and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (non-transitory computer readable media, machine learning model) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are performing grouping of batch features and attributes and such performing of abstract idea on a generic device is not an improvement to technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claims 3, 13, 19 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite an abstract idea of performing grouping of batch features and attributes and such performing of abstract idea and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (non-transitory computer readable media, machine learning model) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are performing grouping of batch features and attributes and such performing of abstract idea on a generic device is not an improvement to technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claims 5, 14, 20 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (computer readable storage media, server computer system, one or more processors) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea they are generating one or more combined features of an event in real time such performing of abstract idea on a generic device is not an improvement to technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claims 8, 21, 22 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite an abstract idea of determining a probability score based on inputting into a machine learning model and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (server computer system, computing system, computer readable storage media,) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in which they determine a probability score based on inputting into a model and such performing of abstract idea on a generic device is not an improvement to technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
The dependent claims 10, 15 and 23 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite an abstract idea of requiring additional authentication if certain threshold is not met and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (computer storage media, one or more processors, server computer system) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in which they require additional authentication if certain threshold is not met and such performing of abstract idea on a generic device is not an improvement to technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
The dependent claims 24 and 25 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite an abstract idea of third feature set is a merchant specific feature that facilitates fraud determination and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (computer storage media, one or more processors, server computer system, non-transitory computer readable storage media) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in which they require additional authentication if certain threshold is not met and such performing of abstract idea on a generic device is not an improvement to technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Therefore, Claims 1-3, 5, 8-15, and 17-25 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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
Prosecution Insights