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 .
Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 8, 13, 15, 16 in the Request for Continued Examination filed on 03/16/2026. Claim 11, 12, 17-19, 21 has been canceled. Claims 22-26 are newly added.
Claims 1-10, 13-16, 20, and 22-26 remain pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10, 13-16, 20, and 22-26 filed on 03/16/2026 have been considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argued paragraphs [0027] and [0037] of the originally filled application provided support for the language “determining, based on the score not exceeding a threshold confidence score, that the behavior does not match the typical behavior of the entity; adjusting the interaction request by adjusting the tag to an adjusted tag that indicates that the behavior does not match the typical behavior of the entity”.
In response to applicant’s argument, paragraph [0027] of the originally filed specification discloses machine-learning model can be constructed by training the model using various subsets of training data and output data, which is overview of how a machine-learning model is created. In addition, [0027] discloses the machine-learning model 142 can be trained to identify whether the interaction 102 or the interaction request 104 fits typical entity behavior based on the training data. The specification does not disclose the specific method/process recited by the claim which requires the use of threshold confidence score to determine the behavior does not match the typical behavior of the entity, and adjusting the interaction request by adjusting the tag to an adjusted tag that indicates that the behavior does not match the typical behavior of the entity.
Paragraph [0037] of the originally filed specification discloses a specific step of tagging request restriction using metadata to enable the interaction processing service to search the security profile for the request restriction relatively efficiently. The specification does not disclose the specific method/process recited by the claim which requires the use of threshold confidence score to determine the behavior does not match the typical behavior of the entity, and adjusting the interaction request by adjusting the tag to an adjusted tag that indicates that the behavior does not match the typical behavior of the entity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 13-16, 20, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The cited paragraph 0028 in the remark discloses “the machine-learning model 142 may output a confidence score to represent a likelihood of the interaction 102 or the interaction request 104 being fraudulent.” The examiner is unable to find support in the specification for ”generate output comprising a score indicating a likelihood that the entity will display a behavior associated with the at least one parameter” of claims 1, 8, and 15. The examiner is unable to find support in the specification for “determining a device-type indicator from metadata associated with the entity device, wherein the device-type indicator is determined based on a type of device of the entity device; apply a tag to the interaction request, wherein the tag identifies the entity device as a unique device associated with the entity and the interaction request, and wherein the tag associates the device-type indicator with the interaction request”, “determining, based on a comparison between the device-type indicator included in the tag and a list of authorized device types stored in the security profile of the entity, that whether the type of device of the entity device is authorized; determining, based on the score not exceeding a threshold confidence score, that the behavior does not match the typical behavior of the entity; adjusting the interaction request by adjusting the tag to an adjusted tag that indicates that the behavior does not match the typical behavior of the entity; adjusting the at least one parameter to an adjusted parameter based on the adjusted tag and based on the comparison between the device-type indicator included in the tag and the list of authorized device types stored in the security profile of the entity” in claims 1, 8, and 15. The cited paragraph 0027 in the remark discloses “the machine-learning model 142 can be trained to identify whether the interaction 102 or the interaction request 104 fits typical entity behavior based on the training data”, which is different from “determining, based on the score not exceeding a threshold confidence score, that the behavior does not match the typical behavior of the entity”. The cited paragraph 0037 in the remark discloses “the request restriction 114 may be tagged (e.g., using metadata) to enable the interaction processing service 106 to search the security profile 108 for the request restriction 114 relatively efficiently”, which is different from “adjusting the interaction request by adjusting the tag to an adjusted tag that indicates that the behavior does not match the typical behavior of the entity”. The examiner is unable to find support in the specification for newly added claims 22-26. All dependent claims are rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
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 1-10, 13-16, 20, and 22-26 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the device-type indicator included in the tag" in lines 27-28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to claims 8 and 15.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one parameter of the interaction request" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to claim 13 and 20.
All dependent claims are rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 13-16, 20, and 22-26 include allowable subject matter but is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), set forth in this Office action. Applicant needs to provide citation of proper supports from the original filed specification and/or drawings for each rejected claim to overcome the 112(a) rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fain et al. (US 11,610,205 B1). Receive a set of training date, prepare the set of training data for model training; analyzing the real-time transaction data and the real-time ATM data using the trained machine learning model, determining that the real-time transaction data and the real-time ATM data indicate a likelihood of fraudulent activity using the trained machine learning model, and generate a notification or alert to the user, a manager of the ATMs, or to local authorities.
Danielpour et al. (US 2022/0358505 A1). Determine the fund transfer request is suspicious, send a fraud alert to an enterprise user computing device; send the parameters of the fund transfer request along with an indication of whether the fund transfer request is fraudulent to the ML engine; the ML engine uses the indication and parameters for training a neural network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
04/23/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights