DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a final office action in response to the election of response filed 16 June 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1, 8, and 21 and cancellation of Claim 24 have been received and is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 were previously cancelled.
The applicant's claim for benefit of Foreign Application IND 202311033587 (filed 5/12/2023), have been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-14 and 21-23 and 25-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: (1) That recited invention improves the functionality of the computing system and/or technology which are described in the Specification – specifically “ the passing of information between nodes of a graph without the need to execute a computationally-expensive graph neural network…the claims specifically recite ways in which computational efficiency in graph-based risk calculation is achieved… the specification identifies a regression model as a computationally more efficient approach to risk calculation than a graph neural network…specification also details that the heightened accuracy provided by the instant approach is itself a computational efficiency….by reducing the quantity of transactions that must be undone or recalled, the more accurate risk assessment set forth in the present disclosure and recited in the instant claims improves the functionality of the computer system….” (Applicant’s response, pg. 10-12) (2) Applicant further argues “… the operations set forth in the claims and discussed above are neither routine nor conventional… the concept of message passing from node to node in the graph, with edges weighted, so as to eliminate the need for a computationally-expensive GNN, is wholly new….the non-conventional combination of processes provides more accurate risk assessment in a less computationally expensive manner. Accordingly, the claims include significantly more than any judicial exception ….” (Applicant’s response, pg. 12-13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted in the rejection previously and below. Applicant’s own arguments that the invention is directed to a ‘more efficient approach to risk calculation’ that is achieved by using a combination of known techniques (i.e. graph neural network, not using graph neural networks, and regression models) in a “wholly new” manner and results in ‘computationally more efficient approach.’ A general assertion of the computing efficiency does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 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 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). )
Examiner withdraws the rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
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 8-14 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.
The term “substantially in real time” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
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 1-14 and 21-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
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. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a methods, and the system of risk calculation in electronic transactions. In the instant case, Claims 1-7, 20-23, 25-26 are directed to a processes. Claims 8-14 are directed to a system.
(2a) Prong 1: Calculating risk in transactions is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: (methods of organizing human activity,) [fundamental economic practices and organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
…, … data respective of an … transaction, the data comprising an account involved in the transaction;
determining, … an entity graph according to the account, wherein the entity graph comprises:
a plurality of first-order connections, each first-order connection comprising a primary node representative of the account, a respective secondary node representative of a respective secondary entity, and a respective edge from the primary node to the secondary node; and
a plurality of second-order connections, each second-order connection comprising one of the secondary nodes, a respective tertiary node representative of a respective tertiary entity, and a respective edge from the secondary node to the tertiary node;
determining, …, a respective weight associated with each first order connection edge based on a quantity of second-order connections associated with the secondary node in the first-order connection;and
processing the … transaction according to values associated with characteristics of the secondary entities, wherein the values are modified by the weights, by:
calculating, …, a risk associated with the electronic transaction according to the respective weights wherein the calculating does not include application of a graph neural network; and
causing a subject of the electronic transaction to be conveyed when the calculated risk is below a threshold; or
causing a subject of the electronic transaction to not be conveyed, or causing conveyance of the subject to be delayed, when the calculated risk is above a threshold.
8. (Original) A system comprising:
a …and
a …having stored thereon instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
… a request to process an … transaction, the electronic transaction involving a user account;
determining an entity graph according to the user account, wherein the entity graph comprises:
a plurality of first-order connections, each first-order connection comprising a primary node representative of the user account, a respective secondary node representative of a respective secondary entity, and a respective edge from the primary node to the secondary node; and
a plurality of second order connections, each second-order connection comprising one of the secondary nodes, a respective tertiary node representative of a respective tertiary entity, and a respective edge from the secondary node to the tertiary node;
determining a respective weight associated with each first-order connection edge based on a quantity of second-order connections associated with the secondary node in the first-order connection;and
processing the electronic transaction substantially in real time according to values associated with characteristics of the secondary entities, wherein the values are modified by the weights wherein the processing does not include application of a graph neural network
21. (New) A method comprising:
… a request to process an … transaction, the electronic transaction involving a user account;
determining an entity graph according to the user account, wherein the entity graph comprises:
a plurality of first-order connections, each first-order connection comprising a primary node representative of the user account, a respective secondary node representative of a respective secondary entity, and a respective edge from the primary node to the secondary node; and
a plurality of second order connections, each second-order connection comprising one of the secondary nodes, a respective tertiary node representative of a respective tertiary entity, and a respective edge from the secondary node to the tertiary node;
determining a respective weight associated with each first-order connection edge based on a quantity of second-order connections associated with the secondary node in the first-order connection;; and
processing the … transaction according to values associated with characteristics of the secondary entities, wherein the values are modified by the weights by applying a regression model to the values modified by the weights.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: (methods of organizing human activity) .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of determining…determining…processing… do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. receiving…) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f) )
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 1-7 and 20-23, 25-26 are directed to a processes. Claims 8-14 are directed to a system.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (computing system, electronic.. processor, non-transitory computer readable medium) merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f)) (Specification, Fig. 1 and 8; [65-66] computing system …such as a desktop computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other such device…computing system… processor… memory…[77] processor….non-transitory computer readable medium )
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (2-7, 9-14, 22-23, and 25-26) introduce the additional elements of wherein clauses further defining elements such as calculating risk.. feature vector… (Claims 2, 3) …determining the entity graph (Claims 5, 7)… respective weight… (Claim 6)… an edge from primary node.. (Claims 10, 23) the user account.. (claims 12, 25); ; … processing the electronic transaction .. .determining… delaying… (Claim 26) and the additional steps of creating… wherein determining the entity graph…(Claim 4, 9 and 22).This element is not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (d)and (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because, the elements amount to mere use of a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f)) (Specification, Fig. 1 and 8; [65-66] computing system …such as a desktop computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or any other such device…computing system… processor… memory…[77] processor….non-transitory computer readable medium )
Therefore, Claims 1-14, 21-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art
The closest prior art of record CA 3205732, Saarenvirta hereinafter referred to as Saarenvirta generally discloses a method and system of outlier detection and transaction monitoring including risk calculations, and US 20180288060 A1, Jackson et al. hereinafter referred to Jackson generally discloses a method and system of risk analysis including calculating risk using weighted values
Even though the prior art of record discloses the general concepts cited above, the prior art of record fails to teach the combination of:
determining, … an entity graph according to the account/user account, wherein the entity graph comprises:
a plurality of first-order connections, each first-order connection comprising a primary node representative of the account, a respective secondary node representative of a respective secondary entity, and a respective edge from the primary node to the secondary node; and
a plurality of second-order connections, each second-order connection comprising one of the secondary nodes, a respective tertiary node representative of a respective tertiary entity, and a respective edge from the secondary node to the tertiary node;
determining a respective weight associated with each first-order connection edge based on a quantity of second-order connections associated with the secondary node in the first-order connection;…
(Claim 1) processing the electronic transaction according to values associated with characteristics of the secondary entities, wherein the values are modified by the weights, by:….calculating, …, a risk associated with the electronic transaction according to the respective weights wherein the calculating does not include application of a graph neural network…
(Claim 8) processing the electronic transaction substantially in real time according to values associated with characteristics of the secondary entities,… wherein the values are modified by the weights wherein the processing does not include application of a graph neural network
(Claim 20 ) processing the electronic transaction according to values associated with characteristics of the secondary entities, wherein the values are modified by the weights by applying a regression model to the values modified by the weights.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yanfu Zhang, Shangqian Gao, Jian Pei, and Heng Huang. 2022. Improving Social Network Embedding via New Second-Order Continuous Graph Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2515–2523. https://doi.org/10.1145/3534678.3539415
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 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 ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691