DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The Applicant filed Amendments on 09/30/2025. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 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.
5. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 are directed to computerized-method (i.e., process).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “… in … transactions which are fraud-labeled transactions and legit-labeled transactions, … : (i) retrieving … a dataset of fraud-labeled transactions … on the dataset of fraud-labeled transactions, to mark transactions as 'similar' or 'novel'; and (ii) … a dataset of legit-labeled transactions … on the dataset of legit-labeled transactions, to mark transactions as 'similar' or 'novel', wherein … classifying transactions as either similar or different to the provided dataset, and wherein … all transactions, by separating transactions inside and outside …; … identify fraud transactions in transactions which have been classified as legit transactions …, to mark transactions as 'legit' or 'fraud', send transactions classified as ‘legit’ transactions … to be processed and marked as ‘similar’ or as ‘novel’; send transactions marked as ‘novel’ … to be processed and marked as ‘similar’ or as ‘novel’; and identify transactions marked as ‘novel’ … as potentially unknown fraud transactions and transactions marked as ‘similar’ … as potentially missed fraud, for alert distribution.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk for classifying financial transactions into fraud or legit transactions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a classification Machine Learning (ML) model”, “a financial system”, “a system”, “one or more processors”, “a data store”, “a ML fraud model”, “a ML legit model”, “a trained legit model”, “a trained ML fraud model”, “an unsupervised algorithm”, “a one-class Support Vector Machine (SVM)”, and “a hypersphere”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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 elements of “a classification Machine Learning (ML) model”, “a financial system”, “a system”, “one or more processors”, “a data store”, “a ML fraud model”, “a ML legit model”, “a trained legit model”, “a trained ML fraud model”, “an unsupervised algorithm”, “a one-class Support Vector Machine (SVM)”, and “a hypersphere” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 3-5 and 7-9 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 3 and 4: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., the computerized-method further comprising calculating a novelty-score for transactions that have been marked as 'novel' by the ML fraud model, and wherein a preconfigured number of transactions having highest novelty-score are transmitted to a user for investigation; the computerized-method further comprising calculating a similarity-score for transactions that have been marked as 'similar' by the ML fraud model, and wherein a preconfigured number of transactions having highest similarity- score are transmitted to a user for investigation), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claim 1. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the ML fraud model amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the ML fraud model) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 5: simply provides further definition to “the computerized environment” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the computerized environment is at least one of: test environment, production environment or staging environment does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 7 and 8: simply provide further definition to “the retrieved fraud-labeled transactions and the retrieved legit-labeled transactions” recited in dependent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the retrieved fraud-labeled transactions are transactions from a preconfigured time; wherein the retrieved legit-labeled transactions are a sample retrieved randomly from the legit-labeled transactions in the data store do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 9: simply provides further definition to “marking transactions as 'similar’” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein marking transactions as 'similar' indicates that a pattern of the transactions is similar to transactions provided during training and wherein transactions marked as 'novel' indicates that the pattern of the transactions is not similar to transactions provided during the training does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application, a play interface) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
6. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that the claim does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. For instance, the claim does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims. Further, the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. All the operations are performed by the processors. Finally, the claim does not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Thus, the claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception … Moreover, the claims do not recite an abstract mathematical formula. Instead, they recite a specific geometric topology (a hypersphere) that functions as a physical constraint on how the processor categorizes and moves data through the pipeline. This geometric optimization in high- dimensional space is a computer-specific method of organizing and accessing memory that the human mind cannot practically replicate (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-2).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that independent claim 1 at issue recite limitations as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk for classifying financial transactions into fraud or legit transactions). In addition, Examiner respectfully submits that geometric topology, particularly in the context of a sphere, involves the study of manifolds and maps between them, focusing on the geometric structures of low-dimensional manifolds like spheres, therefore the amended limitations of independent claim 1 of “by separating transaction inside the hypersphere when marked as “similar” and outside of the hypersphere, when marked as “novel”” still fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk for classifying financial transactions into fraud or legit transactions). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 in the section above.
2. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant asserts that the current application provides an improvement to technology of a classification ML model by minimizing overlooked fraud transactions which are identified as legit transactions by the ML model. For example, the fraud transactions are identified as legit transactions due to new fraud patterns, which the classification ML model can't learn during training, as indicated in paragraph [0002] in the application as-filed. This technical improvement is achieved by operating in a specific order a trained ML fraud model and a trained ML legit model on transactions that have been classified as legit by the classification ML model. The ML fraud model has been trained on a dataset of fraud-labeled transactions and the ML legit model has been trained on a dataset of legit- labeled transactions. Furthermore, the practical application of the current application is that the transactions that have been marked as 'similar' or as 'novel by the trained ML fraud model are distributed as an alert … As previously argued, the Applicant asserts that the amended claims are patent-eligible because the claimed invention is not "directed to" an abstract idea under step 2A of the patent- eligibility test … The additional check of transactions that have been marked as legit by the classification ML model by the trained ML legit model and the trained ML fraud model may not be considered generic. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements represent a practical application, and any allegedly abstract elements recited in Applicant's claims are integrated into this practical application. Claims 3-5 and 7-9 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and therefore include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully asserts that claims 3-5 and 7-9, are likewise allowable. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejections to amended independent claim 1 and to claims 3-5 and 7-9, depended therefrom. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1, 3-5 7-9 under 35 USC 101 be withdrawn (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 2-4).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the current application does not improve the technical field of fraud detection by machine learning models and the amended independent claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the amended independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a classification Machine Learning (ML) model”, “a financial system”, “a system”, “one or more processors”, “a data store”, “a ML fraud model”, “a ML legit model”, “a trained legit model”, “a trained ML fraud model”, “an unsupervised algorithm”, “a one-class Support Vector Machine (SVM)”, and “a hypersphere”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in the section above. Examiner also notes that dependent claims 3-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 since they depend from the rejected independent claim 1.
Relevant Prior Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kala et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0081948) teach system and method for improved fraud detection.
Kramme et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,825,028) teach identifying fraudulent online applications.
Lu et al (U.S. Pub. No 2022/0188828) teach transaction generation for analytics evaluation.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
10. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
11. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696