DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/175,031, filed on 02/27/2023. Claims 21-28 and 43-54 are pending in this application, of which claims 21-28 and 43-54 have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/175,031 filed 02/27/2023 is a Continuation of Application 16/237,560, filed 12/31/2018, now U.S. Patent # 11,593,743.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02/19/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
5. In the response filed April 29, 2025, Applicant amended claims 21-24, 26-27, 43-45, 47, 49-51, and 53, and did not cancel any claims. No new claims were presented for examination.
6. Applicant's amendments to claims 21-24, 26-27, 43-45, 47, 49-51, and 53 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed October 08, 2024, have been fully considered.
8. Applicant submits “that, per the 2019 Revised Guidance and the PTO’s Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, the claims as amended do not “recite” an abstract idea, and, as such, are patent-eligible.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/29/2025, page 10]
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In this instance, claim 21 has been found to recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” by setting forth activities or describing steps encompassing managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), which fall under “certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106 by reciting limitations related to managing risk for a client system, monitoring electronic transaction activity associated with the client system as electronic transactions are performed, assessing transaction characteristics of the monitored electronic transaction activity to determine when a change in risk category of the client system occurs; generating a suggested rule modification to at least one rule of the set of rules based on the transaction characteristics when the change in risk category of the client system occurs; indicating the suggested rule modification generated, receiving an interaction to invoke the suggested rule modification, and applying the suggested rule modification to the at least one rule. Moreover, Applicant’s Specification supports the interpretation of the above-noted steps as implemented in the context of managing relationships or interactions between people (See, e.g., paragraph [0014]: “The present disclosure may also relate to the use of the risk management system in certain scenarios. For example, the client system may interface with the risk management system to leverage the risk decision engine to determine a risk factor for permitting an additional party to utilize the services offered by the client system. In these and other embodiments, the risk decision engine may periodically update the risk factor for such a party. As another example, the client system may interface with the risk management system to verify a risk factor associated with a transaction between two parties via the client system.”) The claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Clearly, organizing human activities is applicable to the process of analyzing risk associated with a transaction between two parties. The limitations of managing, monitoring, generating, indicating, and applying, cover human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors, a user interface, a risk management system, a set of elements, a client system, and a modifying element, the claim limitations merely cover managing interactions between people, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry, the claims recite limitations falling within both the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping as set forth in MPEP 2106. The Office maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Furthermore, the Examiner maintains that the claims set forth or describe steps that can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation and perhaps with the aid of pen and paper, which fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106. The 101 rejection found the limitations in claim 21 to be directed to an abstract idea that falls into the “mental processes” based on the limitations monitoring electronic transaction activity associated with the client system as electronic transactions are performed, generating a suggested rule modification to at least one rule of the set of rules based on the transaction characteristics when the change in risk category of the client system occurs, indicating the suggested rule modification generated, and applying the suggested rule modification to the at least one rule. These limitations recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Mental processes — concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106. As claimed, the steps can be practically performed mentally, by a human evaluating information. These limitations encompass evaluation steps that can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation/judgement perhaps with the aid of pen and paper. These steps describe data gathering, observation, and decision making. Thus, the steps recite the abstract concept of “mental processes.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the claims have been shown to set forth or describe activities falling under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106. The Office maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea.
For the reasons above, in addition to the reasons provided in the updated §101 rejection below, Applicant’s amendment and supporting arguments are not sufficient to overcome the §101 rejection.
9. Applicant submits “In the event that the claims are deemed to “recite” an abstract idea falling into one of the three identified categories—a point Applicant does not concede—Applicant submits that the claims as amended implement any underlying abstract idea into a practical application thereof such that the claims are not “directed to” an abstract idea.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/29/2025, page 10]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry, Applicant argues that the claimed invention “the claims as amended implement any underlying abstract idea into a practical application thereof such that the claims are not “directed to” an abstract idea.” The additional elements in exemplary claim 21 are: a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors, the system, causing presentation of a user interface for interaction with a risk management system, the user interface including a set of elements that indicate a set of rules used by the risk management system, a client system, causing, by the risk management system, presentation of a modifying element in the user interface based on generating the suggested rule modification (claim 21), causing presentation of a user interface for interaction with a risk management system, the user interface including a set of elements, a client system; causing, by the risk management system, presentation of a modifying element in the user interface based on generating the suggested rule modification (claim 43), a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executed by a computer system to perform operations comprising: causing presentation of a user interface for interaction with a risk management system, the user interface including a set of elements, a client system; causing, by the risk management system, presentation of a set of modifying elements within the user interface based on generating the suggested rule modification, which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware (See Applicant’s Specification at paragraph [0095]), software/instructions, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.
Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant’s claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no memory, hardware processors, user interface, risk management system, set of elements, client system, modifying element, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply a suggested rule modification, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof. Nevertheless, even assuming arguendo that an improvement was achieved, improving the process of providing a suggested rule modification, at most, seems to provide an improvement to a business process using generic computing elements, such that any incidental improvement achieved by automating the claim steps would come from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer rather than the sequence of steps/activities recited in the method itself, which does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claim. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”) (cited in the Federal Circuit's FairWarning decision).
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For the above reasons, this argument is found unpersuasive.
10. Applicant submits “that the present claims apply and use any underlying abstract idea in a way that improves the relevant technical field.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/29/2025, page 11]
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that no such improvement to “the relevant technical field” have been shown. The claims merely product a result in the form of “a suggested rule modification,” which is not an improvement to the
memory, hardware processors, system, user interface, or any other system or technology. The claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technology in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is no indication that any of the additional elements or the combination of elements amount to an improvement to the computer or to any technology. Their individual and collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. The claimed steps are implemented using generic computing functions without any improvement to computer technology or the underlying risk management system. There is no specific technical solution. Therefore, these additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
11. Applicant submits “that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 21 in view of the cited art for at least the reasons that the Examiner has not properly determined the scope and content of the prior art or properly resolved the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue as demonstrated at least by the cited art failing to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the features recited in claim 21.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/29/2025, page 13]
In response to Applicant's argument, it is noted that the arguments with respect to the §103 rejection applied to the claims in the previous Office action are primarily raised in support of the amended claims, which are believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth below. Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s argument that “the Examiner has not properly determined the scope and content of the prior art or properly resolved the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue as demonstrated at least by the cited art failing to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the features recited in claim 21,” the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is noted that the examiner has provided reasoning articulating why it would have been obvious to combine the references as proposed. The Examiner notes that a prior art reference must either be in the field of Applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the Applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner points out that the rejection of claim 21 provides an articulated line of reasoning based on the teachings of the prior art, the knowledge of one skilled in the art, and the motivation to modify the prior art to arrive at the conclusion of obviousness of claimed invention, which is a permissible means to support the legal conclusion of the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). As the claims have been given their "broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification", the Examiner asserts that the scope and contents of the prior art have been determined, thereby satisfying the first factual inquiry set forth by Graham v. John Deere Co. The Examiner applied the teachings of Gomez, Liu, and Duke and determined the deficiencies, thereby ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. The Examiner has fulfilled the role of factfinder while resolving the Graham inquiries, as per MPEP 2141, and determined that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art itself, thereby resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. The Examiner asserts that the Graham factual inquiries have been properly resolved, resulting in a proper prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive
12. Applicant submits “none of the cited art appears to teach or suggest the features of “monitoring... electronic transaction activity associated with the client system as electronic transactions are performed via the client system” in combination with “assessing... transaction characteristics of the monitored electronic transaction activity to determine when a change in risk category of the client system occurs” and then “generating... a suggested rule modification to at least one rule of the set of rules based on the transaction characteristics when the change in risk category of the client system occurs”, as recited in claim 21.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/29/2025, page 14]
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “none of the cited art appears to teach or suggest the features of “monitoring... electronic transaction activity associated with the client system as electronic transactions are performed via the client system” in combination with “assessing... transaction characteristics of the monitored electronic transaction activity to determine when a change in risk category of the client system occurs” and then “generating... a suggested rule modification to at least one rule of the set of rules based on the transaction characteristics when the change in risk category of the client system occurs”, as recited in claim 21,” it is noted that this argument is a mere allegation of patentability by the Applicant with no supporting rationale or explanation. Merely stating that the claims do not teach a feature does not offer any insight as to why the specific sections of the prior art relied upon by the Examiner fail to disclose the claimed features. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Moreover, the Examiner notes the limitations being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 04/29/2025, which have been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 21 that are believed to be addressed via the updated ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference and new citations to address the amended limitations in claim 21 and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
13. Applicant submits “Nothing in Gomez, however, teaches or suggests where the “risk management system” itself determines a “suggested rule modification” based on monitored electronic transaction activity and “a change in risk category of the client system”.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/29/2025, pages 14-15]
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., determines a suggested rule modification based on monitored electronic transaction activity and a change in risk category of the client system) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Assuming that the argument refers to the limitation “generating, by the risk management system, a suggested rule modification to at least one rule of the set of rules based on the transaction characteristics when the change in risk category of the client system occurs,” the Examiner notes the limitation being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 04/29/2025, which has been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 21 that are believed to be addressed via the updated ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference and new citations to address the amended limitation in claim 21 and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claim.
14. Applicant submits “that Liu, either alone or in combination with Gomez, does not teach or suggest at least the features of “monitoring... electronic transaction activity associated with the client system as electronic transactions are performed via the client system” in combination with “assessing... transaction characteristics of the monitored electronic transaction activity to determine when a change in risk category of the client system occurs” and then “generating... a suggested rule modification to at least one rule of the set of rules based on the transaction characteristics when the change in risk category of the client system occurs”, as recited in claim 21.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/29/2025, pages 15-16]
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Liu, either alone or in combination with Gomez, does not teach or suggest at least the features of “monitoring... electronic transaction activity associated with the client system as electronic transactions are performed via the client system” in combination with “assessing... transaction characteristics of the monitored electronic transaction activity to determine when a change in risk category of the client system occurs” and then “generating... a suggested rule modification to at least one rule of the set of rules based on the transaction characteristics when the change in risk category of the client system occurs”, as recited in claim 21,” the Examiner notes the limitations being argued by Applicant as being newly amended to the claims in the response filed 04/29/2025, which have been addressed in the updated rejection below. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it pertains to amendments to independent claim 21 that are believed to be addressed via the updated ground of rejection under §103 set forth in the instant Office action, which incorporates a new reference and new citations to address the amended limitations in claim 21 and supports a conclusion of obviousness of the amended claims.
15. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
16. 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.
17. Claims 21-28 and 43-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
18. Claims 21-28 and 43-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 21-28), method (claims 43-48) and non-transitory machine-readable medium (claim 49-54) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine, process, and article of manufacture, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 21-28 and 43-54 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for monitoring knowledge distribution across a workforce of a business enterprise, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 21, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: causing presentation of a user interface for interaction with a risk management system, the user interface including a set of elements that indicate a set of rules used by the risk management system to manage risk for a client system; monitoring, by the risk management system, electronic transaction activity associated with the client system as electronic transactions are performed via the client system; assessing, by the risk management system, transaction characteristics of the monitored electronic transaction activity to determine when a change in risk category of the client system occurs; generating, by the risk management system, a suggested rule modification to at least one rule of the set of rules based on the transaction characteristics when the change in risk category of the client system occurs; causing, by the risk management system, presentation of a modifying element in the user interface based on generating the suggested rule modification, the modifying element indicating the suggested rule modification generated by the risk management system; receiving, via the user interface, an interaction with the modifying element in the user interface to invoke the suggested rule modification; and in response to the interaction with the modifying element to invoke the suggested rule modification, applying the suggested rule modification to the at least one rule. The claim limitations relate to acquiring data (i.e., activity associated with the client) and analyzing the data. The data is used to determine a rule modification, which may be related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people - including following rules or instructions, thereby exemplifying the organization of human activity.
Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of client risk management, falling under the under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106, and also recite an abstract idea falling under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited are: a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors, the system, causing presentation of a user interface for interaction with a risk management system, the user interface including a set of elements that indicate a set of rules used by the risk management system, a client system; causing, by the risk management system, presentation of a modifying element in the user interface based on generating the suggested rule modification (claim 21), causing presentation of a user interface for interaction with a risk management system, the user interface including a set of elements, a client system; causing, by the risk management system, presentation of a modifying element in the user interface based on generating the suggested rule modification (claim 43), a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executed by a computer system to perform operations comprising: causing presentation of a user interface for interaction with a risk management system, the user interface including a set of elements, a client system; causing, by the risk management system, presentation of a set of modifying elements within the user interface based on generating the suggested rule modification (claim 49). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements recited are: a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors, the system, causing presentation of a user interface for interaction with a risk management system, the user interface including a set of elements that indicate a set of rules used by the risk management system, a client system; causing, by the risk management system, presentation of a modifying element in the user interface based on generating the suggested rule modification (claim 21), causing presentation of a user interface for interaction with a risk management system, the user interface including a set of elements, a client system; causing, by the risk management system, presentation of a modifying element in the user interface based on generating the suggested rule modification (claim 43), a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executed by a computer system to perform operations comprising: causing presentation of a user interface for interaction with a risk management system, the user interface including a set of elements, a client system; causing, by the risk management system, presentation of a set of modifying elements within the user interface based on generating the suggested rule modification (claim 49). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes generic computing devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (See, e.g., Spec. at paragraph 0095: “the processor 810 may include any suitable special-purpose or general-purpose computer, computing entity, or processing device including various computer hardware or software modules and may be configured to execute instructions stored on any applicable computer-readable storage media.”). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 22-28, 44-48, and 50-54 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 22-28 recite “wherein the electronic transaction activity associated with the client system includes electronic transactions undertaken by a set of parties using the client system,” “further comprising: identifying an additional party related to the client system; identifying electronic transaction data associated with the additional party; and incorporating the electronic transaction data of the additional party within the electronic transaction activity associated with the client system,” “further comprising: generating a risk factor for the additional party based on the electronic transaction activity associated with the client system and the electronic transaction data of the additional party,” “wherein the modifying element includes a representation of the risk factor, the representation of the risk factor having a risk value and a textual description of a reason for the risk factor,” “wherein the suggested rule modification is a first suggested rule modification, and the at least one rule is a first rule, further comprising: generating a second suggested rule modification to a second rule of the set of rules based on the electronic transaction data of the additional party, the second modifying element indicating the second suggested rule modification to the second rule,” “further comprising: identifying a set of approved transactions of the electronic transaction activity associated with the client system; and identifying a set of declined transactions of the electronic transaction activity associated with the client system,” “wherein the modifying element includes a transaction approval change based on the suggested rule modification,” however these limitations are part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings. The other dependent claims have been evaluated as well, but similar to claims 22-28, these claims also recite details of the abstract ideas themselves accompanied by, at most, generic computer implementation, which is not enough to transform the claims into a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f),(h). See also, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976. Dependent claims 26, 46, 51, 52, and 54 recite additional elements of: a first modifying element, a second modifying element, the set of modifying elements, a third modifying element, and a set of modifying elements. However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
20. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
21. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
22. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
23. Claims 21-28, 43-51, and 54 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez, Pub. No.: US 2019/0354982 A1 [hereinafter Gomez], in view of Liu et al., Pub. No.: US 2010/0287099 A1, [hereinafter Liu], in further view of Duke et al., Pub. No.: US 2014/0282856 A1, [hereinafter Duke].
As per claim 21, Gomez teaches a system (paragraph 0006), comprising:
a non-transitory memory (paragraph 0068); and
one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations (paragraphs 0044, 0068), comprising:
causing presentation of a user interface for interaction with a risk management system, the user interface including a set of elements that indicate a set of rules used by the risk management system to manage risk for a client system (paragraph 0072, discussing a user interface that enables a user to access the system via a workstation or the like to view or modify existing business rules and/or to create new business rules…the system is configured to have a graphical user interface that enables a user to work on business rules without requiring advanced knowledge of database programming. For example, in a graphical interface enables a user to configure business rules via simple graphical structures such as check boxes, sliding displays, and drop-down menus; paragraph 0073, discussing that a screen shot of one embodiment of a business rule management interface is depicted. As shown, each business rule preferably has its own unique name 132, which can be defined by the user at a text box. Additional aspects of the business rule can be defined by the user choosing one or more aspects from various drop-down menus. For example, each business rule preferably is tied to a category of financial crime, meaning that the rule relates to behavior/patterns that are typically associated with the selected crime. Other features include, for example, the type of transactions and products to which the business rule applies, the entity targeted by the business rule, and a risk score associated with the business rule, as some business rules are tied to more risk-suggestive behavior than others; paragraph 0044);
generating, by the risk management system, a suggested rule modification to at least one rule of the set of rules (paragraph 0074, discussing that with reference to FIG. 6, a plurality of sub-screens are depicted to show how a user may configure business rules. For example, a series of drop-down menus can be manipulated to define the period, or date range of transactions, that are considered by a particular business rule. The user can also set a delay before new transactions will be evaluated in an analysis, such as 2 days. As such, an analysis will evaluate transactions that were created beginning 2 days before the analysis date. A series of sliding displays can enable the user to define ranges of particular criteria that are employed in defining the rule. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, sliding displays are used to define the rule as requiring at least 2 transactions sending an aggregated amount greater than $2,000, using only transactions between $500-$2,000. Notably, the settings in the illustrated sliding displays, check-boxes, drop-down menus, and the like, preferably are used by the system to construct the rule description; paragraphs 0079-0086, discussing that some of the criteria that can be selectively used and adjusted while configuring a business rule include, for example: Define the period of time for transaction review; Accumulated amount or number of transactions by sender and/or beneficiary over the defined period of time; Range of min and max number of transactions, accumulated amount, individual transaction amount, number of remitters, number of beneficiaries; Whether specific criteria apply to a remitter or beneficiary; Whether evaluating incoming or outgoing transactions; Consider transactions only from or to specific geographic areas, groupings of high-risk or low-risk areas that can be defined independently, or all countries; and Schedule for running analysis of rule, such as over a rolling period of a specific number of days or at a specific time or times each period of days, months, quarters or years; paragraph 0012);
causing, by the risk management system, presentation of a modifying element in the user interface based on generating the suggested rule modification, the modifying element indicating the suggested rule modification generated by the risk management system (paragraph 0072, discussing that the money transfer organization system works with a user interface that enables a user to access the system via a workstation or the like to view or modify existing business rules and/or to create new business rules…For example, in a preferred embodiment a graphical interface enables a user to configure business rules via simple graphical structures such as check boxes, sliding displays, and drop-down menus; paragraph 0073, discussing that check boxes are provided for further narrowing the business rule to specific situations or facts, such as whether the rule is run based only on particular branches of the organization and/or whether only senders/remitters of the same nationality are considered. As will be discussed further below, other screens and subscreens enable the user to configure the particulars of the business rule, but preferably the management interface generates a rule description that describes the factors and criteria for triggering this particular business rule; paragraphs 0079-0086, discussing that some of the criteria that can be selectively used and adjusted while configuring a business rule include, for example: Define the period of time for transaction review; Accumulated amount or number of transactions by sender and/or beneficiary over the defined period of time; Range of min and max number of transactions, accumulated amount, individual transaction amount, number of remitters, number of beneficiaries; Whether specific criteria apply to a remitter or beneficiary; Whether evaluating incoming or outgoing transactions; Consider transactions only from or to specific geographic areas, groupings of high-risk or low-risk areas that can be defined independently, or all countries; and Schedule for running analysis of rule, such as over a rolling period of a specific number of days or at a specific time or times each period of days, months, quarters or years; paragraph 0117, discussing that preferably the risk parameter configuration interface screen enables a data specialist to assign, and modify, each of the ponderance values. Such ponderance values preferably are determined based upon experience. For example, a statistical analysis may reveal that outliers in one primary risk parameter calculation are associated with 50% more SARs than outliers in a second primary risk parameter, and thus the ponderance for the first risk parameter is set at a level 50% higher than that of the second risk parameter. In some embodiments the ponderance values remain the same unless and until experience dictates that they be changed. In other embodiments, different ponderance assignments may be employed, for example, for different groups. For example, experience may demonstrate that the relative indication of risk of specific primary risk parameters may be different in different groups of agents, such as in different countries. Also, as with the business rules discussed above, the illustrated interface lends itself to experimentation and testing in order to fine-tune its effectiveness; paragraph 0098);
receiving, via the user interface, an interaction with the modifying element in the user interface to invoke the suggested rule modification (paragraph 0044, discussing that the system can interface with multiple organization systems such as user and manager systems, which can include workstations, from which users can access databases, make changes to analyses and procedures, perform maintenance and make adjustments to the system, as well as compliance systems, from which financial analysts may obtain information about possible misuses of the money transfer system; paragraph 0057, discussing that the transaction data can then be analyzed for potentially suspect transactions by applying business rules to the transaction data; paragraph 0087, discussing that by configuring business rules using user interfaces consistent with the illustrated embodiment, users can easily create new rules and fine-tune such rules as needed. For example, criminal organizations are known to change procedures from time to time. As law enforcement notes changes in criminal behavior, existing business rules can easily be adjusted by personnel of the money transfer organization to reflect such new patterns. Additionally, in some embodiments a user can fine-tune a business rule and test it to determine its effectiveness. For example, if a certain period is already known to include instances of suspicious behavior, as well as known instances of non-suspicious behavior, the business rule can be adjusted in several ways so as to create multiple versions of the business rule. Each version can be run in connection with the certain period, and the user can determine which version most efficiently identifies the known instances of suspicious behavior, while minimizing flagging of behavior that, when investigated, was shown to not be suspicious. As such, the easily-configurable interface enables fine-tuning and testing of business rules to maximize their effectiveness and efficiency); and
in response to the interaction with the modifying element to invoke the suggested rule modification, applying the suggested rule modification to the at least one rule (paragraph 0073, discussing that with reference next to FIG. 5, a screen shot of one embodiment of a business rule management interface is depicted. As shown, each business rule preferably has its own unique name, which can be defined by the user at a text box. Additional aspects of the business rule can be defined by the u