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
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 are pending in this application.
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 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 10 and product claim 19. Claim 1 recites the limitations of system for detecting non-compliant spending (by employees).
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Receiving a transaction history (“transaction history” = transaction info between employees and merchants); storing transaction info in database; (using machine learning algorithm) detecting leakage events (1st leakage event indicates spending rule non-compliance); (leakage event used as input to machine learning); determining a first confidence score using string distance calculation; identifying merchant in response to confidence score exceeding confidence score threshold; analyzing compliance level based on detection; and generating and displaying on the GUI, compliance level showing number of employees detected in leakage; and where the GUI has user scrollable slider controls – specifically, the claim recites:
“a transaction history comprising transaction information associated with a plurality of transactions for an entity, wherein the transaction information involves transactions completed between employees of the entity and one or more merchants, wherein the transaction information is maintained in a transaction database of the transaction account issuer; detecting, using a machine learning algorithm… one or more leakage events associated with a transaction, the one or more leakage events comprising a first leakage event, wherein the first leakage event indicates a non-compliance of a spending rule of the entity by a participant in the transaction, wherein the one or more detected leakage events are analyzed as inputs to improve performance of the machine learning algorithm using unsupervised machine learning; determining, by the computing device, a first confidence score using string distance calculations; identifying… an individual merchant of the one or more merchants as being associated with the transaction in response to the first confidence score meeting or exceeding a first confidence score threshold; performing… an analysis of a compliance level of the entity based on performing the detection of the one or more leakage events for the plurality of transactions; generating… a network-based graphical user interface; loading the network-based graphical user interface into memory; and displaying, to a graphical user interface window within the network-based graphical user interface, a compliance level of the entity that indicates an amount of employees of the entity that have been detected to participate in leakage events, wherein the graphical user interface window has one or more user-scrollable slider controls”, recites a fundamental economic practice.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, directed to mitigating risk.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The “a computing device”, “a transaction database”, “a machine learning algorithm”, “a network-based graphical user interface”, “a graphical user interface window”, and “memory”, in claim 1; the additional technical element of “a processor” and “a non-transitory memory” in claim 10; and the additional technical element of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “instructions” in claim 19 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 10 and 19 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a computing device and a processor; a communication device such as a network-based graphical user interface and a graphical user interface window; a storage unit such as a transaction database, a non-transitory memory, memory, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium; and software module and algorithm such as a machine learning algorithm and instructions. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The examiner notes that although the claim recites “a machine learning algorithm”, it is recited at a high level. See claims 1, 10 and 1p. For example, the claims simply state what the “machine learning algorithm”, will do in the claimed business process – i.e. detecting leakage. These are nominal recitations. The examiner notes that the applicant is not improving machine learning technology. Rather the applicant is using machine learning in a business process. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 10, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of wherein the detecting the one or more leakage events further comprises determining, by the computing device, a transaction purpose of the transaction, wherein the first leakage event is detected in further response to the transaction purpose being determined as having a personal purpose, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of determining, by the computing device, if the individual merchant accepts a set payment method, wherein the first leakage event is detected in response to the individual merchant accepting or not accepting the set payment method, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of analyzing, by the computing device, consumer information associated with a consumer in the transaction, wherein the consumer information is comprised in the transaction information associated with the transaction; matching, by the computing device, a consumer identifier comprised in the consumer information with stored consumer information associated with a stored consumer; identifying, by the computing device, the consumer associated with the transaction; and determining, by the computing device, if the consumer has been issued a predefined payment instrument to conduct a payment to complete the transaction, wherein the first leakage event is detected further in response to at least one of consumer not having been issued the predefined payment instrument, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 discloses the limitation of wherein the one or more leakage events comprise the first leakage event and a second leakage event, wherein the first leakage event comprises the transaction not being paid using a predefined payment method, wherein the second leakage event comprises the transaction being identified as having a personal purpose, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of wherein the one or more leakage events comprises the first leakage event and a second leakage event, wherein the first leakage event comprises the transaction not being paid using a predefined payment method, wherein the first leakage event is identified as having a business purpose, wherein the second leakage event comprises merchant information associated with the transaction as being incomplete, wherein the method further comprises supplying incomplete information from previously stored merchant information by matching available merchant information associated with the transaction with the previously stored merchant information, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of wherein the matching of the available merchant information associated with the transaction with the previously stored merchant information comprises: determining, by the computing device, a second confidence score in response to matching the available merchant information with the previously stored merchant information using string distance calculations; comparing, by the computing device, the second confidence score to a second confidence score threshold; and identifying, by the computing device, the available merchant information as being associated with the previously stored merchant information in response to the second confidence score meeting or exceeding the second confidence score threshold, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of comprising presenting on a graphical display, by the computing device, one or more possible action items to address the detected one or more leakage events, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “a graphical display” and “the computing device” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of wherein the detecting the one or more leakage events further comprises determining a transaction purpose of the transaction, wherein the first leakage event is detected in further response to the transaction purpose being determined as having a personal purpose, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of the instructions further cause the computing device to: determine if the individual merchant accepts a set payment method, wherein the first leakage event is detected in response to the individual merchant accepting or not accepting the set payment method, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of the instructions further cause the computing device to: analyze consumer information associated with a consumer in the transaction, wherein the consumer information is comprised in the transaction information associated with the transaction; match a consumer identifier comprised in the consumer information with stored consumer information associated with a stored consumer; identify the consumer associated with the transaction; and determine if the consumer has been issued a predefined payment instrument to conduct a payment to complete the transaction, wherein the first leakage event is detected further in response to at least one of consumer not having been issued the predefined payment instrument, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 discloses the limitation of wherein the one or more leakage events comprises the first leakage event and a second leakage event, wherein the first leakage event comprises the transaction not being paid using a predefined payment method, wherein the second leakage event comprises the transaction being identified as having a personal purpose, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of wherein the one or more leakage events comprise the first leakage event and a second leakage event, wherein the first leakage event comprises the transaction not being paid using a predefined payment method, wherein the first leakage event is identified as having a business purpose, wherein the second leakage event comprises merchant information associated with the transaction as being incomplete, wherein the method further comprises supplying incomplete information from previously stored merchant information by matching available merchant information associated with the transaction with the previously stored merchant information, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 discloses the limitation of determining, by the computing device, a second confidence score in response to matching the available merchant information with the previously stored merchant information using string distance calculations; comparing, by the computing device, the second confidence score to a second confidence score threshold; and identifying, by the computing device, the available merchant information as being associated with the previously stored merchant information in response to the second confidence score meeting or exceeding the second confidence score threshold, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 discloses the limitation of wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to present on the network-based graphical user interface by the computing device, one or more possible action items to address the detected one or more leakage events, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the computing device” and “the network-based graphical user interface” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 discloses the limitation of wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to present on the network-based graphical user interface by the computing device, one or more possible action items to address the detected one or more leakage events, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the computing device” and “the network-based graphical user interface” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 21 discloses the limitation of determining, by the computing device, a second confidence score in response to matching the available merchant information with the previously stored merchant information using string distance calculations; comparing, by the computing device, the second confidence score to a second confidence score threshold; and identifying, by the computing device, the available merchant information as being associated with the previously stored merchant information in response to the second confidence score meeting or exceeding the second confidence score threshold, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 22 discloses the limitation of determining, by the computing device, if the identified merchant accepts a set payment method, wherein the first leakage event is detected in response to the identified merchant accepting or not accepting the set payment method, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. § 101… claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 are patent eligible because they are not directed to a judicial exception,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has determined that the claims recite the abstract idea of detecting non-compliant spending (by employees). See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 above for detail analysis explaining why the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, directed to mitigating risk.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“that claims would still be patent-eligible because they integrate any alleged judicial exception into a
practical application,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has determined that this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 above for detail analysis of why the claimed elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“(after listing MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(11)(A). Examples of "fundamental economic practices or principles")… Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 fail to fall within any of these enumerated interactions. Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action fails to show that the claims are directed to any of the listed examples of fundamental economic principles or practices, such as mitigating risk,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s narrow reading of the MPEP in limiting all possible abstract ideas (for 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis purpose) to only those seven numbered and listed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). A proper reading requires consideration of the entire MPEP 2106.04 guidance.
First, MPEP 2106.07(a)(I) states that “(e)xaminers should not go beyond those concepts that are enumerated as abstract ideas in MPEP § 2106.04 (all emphases in this reply are examiner’s),”; this is much broader than what the applicant is arguing – i.e., it does not state that examiners should not go beyond abstract ideas enumerated MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Second, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A), itself, clearly labeled the listed abstract ideas as “other examples of "fundamental economic principles or practices"”. It does not state that these are the only abstract ideas of MPEP § 2106.04. Thus, when the MPEP 2106.07(a)(I) states “(e)xaminers should not go beyond those concepts that are enumerated as abstract ideas in MPEP § 2106.04”, contrary to what the applicant seems to be arguing for, it means the entire MPEP § 2106.04.
If anything, MPEP § 2106.04(a) clearly states that “the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas… By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.” In other words, examiners are relieved from legal analysis that often accompanied case law arguments/analysis. Instead, the examiners are directed to find proper fittings within the MPEP enumerated groupings of abstract ideas.
Within these enumerated groupings, the examiner has determined that the claims are directed towards “certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a). Specifically, the examiner has determined that detecting non-compliant spending (by employees) is part of the societal fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 recite a technical solution to a technical problem… Applicant has claimed various solutions that solve technical problems. For example, amended claim 1 recites… 1. A method comprising: receiving, by a computing device of a transaction account issuer in real time, a transaction history comprising transaction information associated with a plurality of transactions… detecting, using a machine learning algorithm by the computing device, one or more leakage events associated with a transaction, the one or more leakage events… displaying, to a graphical user interface window within the network-based graphical user interface, a compliance level of the entity that indicates an amount of employees of the entity that have been detected to participate in leakage events, wherein the graphical user interface window has one or more user-scrollable slider controls (emphasis originals’),”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The emphasized claim language above are essentially procedures (receiving transaction information, processing information, and displaying information). There is no technical innovation. The claims do not improve computer technology. Nor do they improve graphical user interface technology.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Applicant submits that, being unable to "efficiently [attain]" the analysis and results from "processing large amounts of data (e.g., the transaction information for thousands of transactions conducted by employees of a company)" at the risk of "company spending behavior [maybe] [going] undetected and/or unresolved for some time",”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the prior office actions:
“The examiner is not disputing the premise that computers will generally increase the speed and efficiency in carrying out some repetitive processes. Thus, the applicant’s business process/ideas could very well be carried out faster and more efficiently using generic computers. Neither is the examiner arguing that the claim language lacks such generic electronic devices. Rather, the examiner has determined that such devices amount to nothing more than “generic computers”, used and recited at such a high level that they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.”
In response to applicant's argument that:
“claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 are nevertheless patent-eligible because at least claims 1, 10, and 19 recite additional elements that are sufficient so as to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception… claim elements, considered as a combination, contain an inventive concept of a non-conventional arrangement of elements… For example, claim 1 recites "receiving, by a computing device of a transaction account issuer in real time, a transaction history," "detecting, using a machine learning algorithm by the computing device, one or more leakage events associated with a transaction," "performing, by the computing device, an analysis of a compliance level of the entity," and "displaying, to a graphical user interface window within the network-based graphical user interface, a compliance level of the entity that indicates an amount of employees of the entity that have been detected to participate in leakage events",”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the claim language above are essentially procedures (receiving transaction information, processing information, and displaying information). There is no technical innovation. The claims do not improve computer technology. Nor do they improve graphical user interface technology. As stated in the prior office actions:
“There is no improvement to the technology. The examiner has determined that the disclosed technical elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. The Alice Court teaches that abstract ideas that lack genuine innovation beyond the use of generic computers are not patentable.”
Conclusion
Accordingly, 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693