DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 07 January 2026.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9 and 15-16 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections for Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejections are still applicable for the instant application.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that independent claim 1 is directed to an improved system for determining a measure of accuracy and a level of severity of vulnerabilities of a fraud detection model and thus are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field further citing sections from the specification and the newly amended language. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP clarifies how additional elements can impose meaningful limits on a recited judicial exception:
“Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II))
Drawing attention to the emphasized section, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. In the current case, regardless of whether or not applicant’s invention improves the recited judicial exception, improving a method, algorithm, or process of a judicial exception absent of any technological modification, would be an improvement to the judicial exception (e.g. via the improvement in the efficiency of the judicial exception), but does not improve computers or technology.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that under Step 2B claim 1 provides improvements to the functioning of a computer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d)” (See MPEP 2106.05(II)).
In both the prior and instant Office Action, the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two are equally applied in Step 2B which further re-evaluates additional elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity and evaluates these elements as per MPEP §2106.05(d) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Said elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity are evaluated as well-understood, routine, and conventional as per the evidentiary requirements detailed in MPEP §2106.07(a)(III) utilizing option (B) via citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Thus, there are no further elements to evaluate under Step 2B. Most considerations relating to any additional elements were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two and thus do not require further re-evaluation in Step 2B. Thus Examiner incorporates there arguments applied to Step 2A Prong Two herein.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,741,475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are obvious combination of these same elements present in the ‘475 patent, are broader than, use non-identical but functionally similar wording, or omit elements with a corresponding loss of function. The omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPA 375.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,244,321. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are obvious combination of these same elements present in the ‘321 patent, are broader than, use non-identical but functionally similar wording, or omit elements with a corresponding loss of function. The omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPA 375.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a system, method, and computer program product. These are a machine, process and article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1, 8, and 15:
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15:
“a first transaction related action from a set of transaction related actions for an agent based on a plurality of features associated with the agent, …, wherein each transaction related action comprises an action associated with conducting a payment transaction by the agent, and wherein, when selecting the first transaction related action from the set of transaction related actions for the agent,…”
“determine the plurality of features associated with the agent based on one or more historical payment transactions of a plurality of historical payment transactions involving the account of the user;”
“provide the plurality of features associated with the agent as an input to an agent action…model, wherein the agent action …model comprises a …model that is configured to map the plurality of features associated with the agent to a plurality of probability distributions for a plurality of transaction related actions:”
“generate an output of the agent action …model, wherein the output comprises the set of transaction related actions for the agent;”
“select the first transaction related action from the set of transaction related actions for the agent;”
“generate a feature vector based on one or more fraudulent transactions that are based on the first transaction related action;”
“provide the feature vector as an input to a fraud detection…model;”
“determine an output of the fraud detection…model based on the feature vector as the input;”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor programmed or configured to:” or “A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Mitigating Risk. Mitigating Risk is described when performing fraud detection model evaluation. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claims 1, 8 and 15:
“…the at least one processor is programmed or configured to:”
“…wherein the agent comprises a simulated adversarial actor that is designed to engage in fraudulent conduct involving an account of a user…”
“update a weight parameter of the agent action machine learning model based on a fraudulent reward parameter for the first transaction related action that is associated with the output of the fraud detection machine learning model.”
“…machine learning…”
“…machine learning…”
“…stochastic machine learning…”
Claim 1:
“at least one processor programmed or configured to:”
Claim 15:
“A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:”
The computer components (processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor and generic storage) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The use of simulated agents, machine learning, stochastic machine learning and machine learning retraining is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Accordingly, these 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 independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do 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 identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The independent claims recite no elements that are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has performed a search and has determined that the claims would not be obvious over the prior art. What follows is a discussion of the closest prior art of reference.
Zoldi et al. (US 2018/0330379 Al) as the closest prior art of reference discloses modelling of adversarial AI based on transaction data and tuning these AI based on transaction data and fraud scoring models’ operating thresholds.
Adjaoute (US 2015/0046224 Al) discloses generating vectors for transaction data and authorization requests.
Chen et al. (US 2020/0058399 Al) discloses updating a reinforcement learning agent via adjusted weights based on rewards earned by performing a sequence of actions elected by the agent.
Adjaoute (US 2016/0071017 Al) discloses updating a training set for a machine learning model with all the new data records not utilized when first training a network and retraining the model (i.e. adding in newly detected fraudulent transactions).
Boding et al. (US 2014/0089193 Al) discloses determining active (i.e. being applied to incoming transactions) and passive (i.e. not being applied to incoming transactions) fraud rule profiles and applying various testing procedures to the active and passive profiles based on whether they are active or passive.
Kim et al. (US 10,692,140 discloses machine learning models may be stochastic models.
Dong (US 2020/0210808 Al) discloses training datasets using supervised adversarial autoencoder models.
Vyas (“Q-Learning” AITS Journal) as the closest NPL examiner could find discloses a Q-function for representing a reward return for an agent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knutsson (EP 3416123 Al) as the closest foreign reference examiner could find discloses applying learned signals from fraudulent transaction to incoming transactions in order to update a fraud model in real-time.
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 ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (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 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3691
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights