DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Examiner Comments
Claims 1-5 and 7-18 were presented for examination. Applicant filed an amendment on 11/06/2025 amending claims 1-3, 13, 17 and 18 with remarks/arguments. After careful consideration of applicant’s amendments and arguments, new ground of rejections of claims necessitated by applicant amendment has been established in the instant application as set forth in detail below. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 1-5 and 7-12 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.
As per amended claims 1, 17 and 18, these claim recites " transmitting, to a third computer system, a request to conduct due diligence on the customer when the first monitoring level is selected” which is not supported by the disclosures as submitted including the written description. Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the amended claim limitations as described in the application as filed. Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the claims.
The written description only supports “… risk factors may include due diligence results of the customer”, and “…due diligence is required to determine whether there is anything suspicious.”
Applicant requested to cite a portion of submitted written description/disclosure where support for above limitation is disclosed, otherwise the limitation would constitute a new matter.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-5 and 7-18 of instant application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,163,158; claims 1-12 of U. S. Patent No. 10,922,754; claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,599,945; and claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,908,016 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
“receiving, from a second computer system, customer data, which includes period of transactional data of the customer; transforming the customer data into a money laundering risk score of the customer for the period; selecting a monitoring level from a first monitoring level and a second monitoring level to monitor the customer based on the money laundering risk score, the first monitoring level selected in response to the money laundering risk score being greater than a threshold, the second monitoring level selected in response to the money laundering risk score being less than the threshold.”
The instant application does not recite: “transforming the first set of risk scores and the second set of risk scores of each customer into a total risk score of the customer, and identifying, by the processor of the first computer system, a transactional pattern by monitoring the transactional data according to the selected monitoring level, the transactional data comprising a plurality of transactions from a plurality of data sources, at least one transaction of the plurality of transactions comprising an electronic transaction” of patent ‘754; “identifying input of a customer and suspicious activity types, adjusting monitoring level, filtering transactional data, updating risk factors” of patent ‘158; and “transmitting, to a third computer system, at least a portion of personal data associated with the customer when the first monitoring level is selected and the first monitoring method detects that the customer matches a condition” of patent ‘016.
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 1-5 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, Claims 1-5 and 7-18 are directed to utilizing a derived integral formulation of the single-generator unit commitment problem to facilitate the calculation of the optimal convex hull price by solving a linear program. The claims 1-5 and 7-18 are analyzed to see if claims are statutory category of invention, recites judicial exception and the claims are further analyzed to see if the claims are integrated into practical application if the judicial exception is recited and the claims provides an inventive as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility as set forth below:
Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 106.03.
Claim 1 is directed to a process i.e., a series of method steps or acts, of monitoring money laundering, which is a statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 17 is directed to a system comprising at least a memory device and a processor, for monitoring money laundering. The claimed system is therefore directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (a combination of device) (Step 1: YES).
Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is a manufacture. The claim, thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. There are no nature- based product limitations in this claim, and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Claims 1 , 17 and 18 are similar and are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recite step of “receive customer data including transactional information of the customer; transforming the set of data into a money laundering risk score of the customer; selecting a monitoring level from a first monitoring level and a second monitoring level to monitor data related to transactions of the customer.”
The limitations of “receive customer data, transforming the set of data into a money laundering risk score of the customer; selecting a monitoring level from a first monitoring level and a second monitoring level to monitor data related to transactions of the customer” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is similar to calculating a number representing an alarm limit value using a mathematical formula in Parker v. Flook. That is, other than reciting “processor” and therefore, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performing mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. For example, but for the “processor” language, manually “calculating and transforming/selecting money laundering score for collected data.” The recitation of a processor in this claim does not negate the mathematical concept nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses the generic computer component as a tool to perform the otherwise mathematical processes. See October Update at Section I(C )(ii). The recitation is nothing but mathematical relationship/formula which is an abstract idea, similar to formula for computing an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, which has been found by the court to be an abstract idea. Thus, the above limitations of recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical formula/relationship” groupings of abstract ideas. (YES).
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract idea as described in Prong 1, the claim recites the additional elements of the computing device performing “transmitting customer data when the first monitoring level is selected and due diligence on the customer is required based on the first monitoring frequency, receiving an instruction to report the customer as having conducted a suspicious money laundering activity and transmitting a report of the suspicious money laundering activity in response to receiving the instruction.” The processor in the step is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function monitoring and transmitting. The recitation of processor without further details that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The additional element of “transmitting customer data, receiving an instruction to report the customer as having conducted a suspicious money laundering activity and transmitting a report of the suspicious money laundering activity” using processor is merely confines the use of the abstract idea to technological environment and thus fails to add inventive concept to the claims . see MPEP 2106.05 (h). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
An evaluation of whether limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation (a) is well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, this additional element represents mere data gathering, displaying and tracking/comparing/relating. The limitation of “transmitting customer data, receiving an instruction and transmitting a report of the suspicious money laundering activity …..“ in the claim is an insignificant extra-solution activity. But the computer is recited so generically without any details that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a controller. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the computer does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive concept? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, there are two additional elements.
The first is the processor, which is configured to perform all the limitations recited. As explained previously, the processor is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
The second additional element is limitation of “transmitting customer data when the first monitoring level is selected and due diligence on the customer is required based on the first monitoring frequency, receiving an instruction to report the customer as having conducted a suspicious money laundering activity and transmitting a report of the suspicious money laundering activity in response to receiving the instruction”, which as explained previously is extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Under the 2019 PEG, however, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. 2019 PEG Section III(B), 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the recitation of a processor is being configured to ““transmitting customer data when the first monitoring level is selected and due diligence on the customer is required based on the first monitoring frequency, receiving an instruction to report and transmitting a report of the suspicious money laundering activity in response to receiving the instruction”, for implementation of applicant’s mathematical formulation according to the definition that is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation (a) does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Further, Applicant specifically described invention is to implement transmitting customer data when the first monitoring level is selected and due diligence on the customer is required based on the first monitoring frequency, receiving an instruction to report the customer as having conducted a suspicious money laundering activity and transmitting a report of the suspicious money laundering activity in response to receiving the instruction (see Fig. 2: Specification: paragraph [0214-0219]). The claimed additional elements of executing spread module in response to receiving request from input device is implemented using examples of existing computer networking equipment, hardware, and software that are used to construct the claimed invention without apparent modification (see Fig. 1; Specification: paragraph [0220-0222]]). Therefore, the additional element only recite generic components and steps are well-understood routine and conventional.
The claims as presented is a formula in isolation and it is not analogous to claims found in eligible Diamond v. Diehr which imposed meaningful limits that apply the formula to improve an existing technological process of transforming raw and uncured rubber to cured molded rubber. The computer in the Diehr precisely determines when to open the press and eject the cured rubber perfectly curing the rubber by repeatedly calculating the rubber cure time from this temperature measurement and comparing the computed cure time to the actual elapsed time. The steps of continuously measuring temperature and repeatedly recalculating the rubber cure time and comparing it to the elapsed time were new steps that were found to be worthy of patent protection in the Diehr, which is not comparable to “transmitting customer data when the first monitoring level is selected and due diligence on the customer is required based on the first monitoring frequency, receiving an instruction to report the customer as having conducted a suspicious money laundering activity and transmitting a report of the suspicious money laundering activity in response to receiving the instruction” as recited in the instant claims. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims is not patent eligible. (NO).
Dependent Claims:
Examiner further reviewed the dependent claims 2-5 and 7-16 that could be added to the independent claims to make patent eligible. The dependent claims as recited pertains to additional description of transactional data, category of monitoring, financial institution and governmental organization”, which appear to be a mental process using a generic computer component that been found to be an abstract idea. These dependent claims do not provide additional elements significantly more than the purported abstract idea that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims as recited would not make the independent claim significantly more by incorporating them into the independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 7-18 are not patent eligible (NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 and 17-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Hawkins et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,930,228 (reference A in attached PTO-892) in view of Recce et al.., U.S. Pub No. 2009/0248465 (reference B in attached PTO-892) further in view of Nisal et al., U.S. Pub No. 2013/0036038 (reference C in attached PTO-892).
As per claim 1, Hawkins et al. teach a computer-implemented method for monitoring a customer to detect money laundering activity at a first computer system (see Fig. 1, Due Diligence Service Provider (102): Processor (102A), Monitoring Module (102G), Risk assessment Module (102F)), comprising:
receiving, from a second computer system, customer data, which includes transactional data of the customer (see Fig. 1, Client (110) -> Accounts (108); Fig 3C to 3E: V. Anti Money Laundering Record (310): column 4, lines 56-67; Fig. 2, Monitoring (208): Review Account Activity (Steps 208A): column 7, lines 21-32; where set of customer associated with anti-money laundering activities in account is received and monitored);
transforming the customer data into a money laundering risk score of the customer (see Fig. 2, Risk Assessment (206): column 7, lines 41-44;Fig. 4A-4E: column 5, lines 38-63; column 6, lines 5-37 where transaction activity of account of customer determines money laundering risk level rating/ranking of customer account by risk ranking tool);
transmitting, to a third computer system, a request to conduct due diligence on the customer when the first monitoring level is selected (see Fig. 1, Financial Institution (104), Due Diligence Service Provider (102); Fig. 2, step 208 and 210: column 7, lines 20-54; Fig. 3A-3E: column 4, lines 36-67]; where transaction activity of client in the action is monitored on level of risk category and due diligence service provider system 102 notifies suspicious and unusual suspicious activity in comparison to client’s actual and anticipated activity to the Financial Institition104 and requested to conduct due diligence subjected under Patriot Act);
receiving, from the third computer system, an instruction to report the customer as having conducted a suspicious money laundering activity; and transmitting, to a fourth computer system, a report of the suspicious money laundering activity in response to receiving the instruction (see Fig. 1, Financial Institution (104): column 7, lines 32-40; where the Financial Institution filed suspicious activity report on failure to comply with due diligence procedure and suspend activity in the account and/or close the account).
Hawkins et al. do not teach receiving, from a second computer system, customer data, which includes period of transactional data of the customer; transforming the customer data into a money laundering risk score of the customer for the period.
Nisal et al. teach receiving, from a second computer system, customer data, which includes period of transactional data of the customer (see paragraph [0014, 0026]); transforming the customer data into a money laundering risk score of the customer for the period (see Table 2, Risk Score, Weightage Parameter, Risk Index for Customer A: paragraph [0037]; where total risk score as weighted average of risk attributes including the customer background and transaction is determined by multiplying weight assigned to each attributes as shown in Table as weighted parameter).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the receiving, from a second computer system, customer data, which includes period of transactional data of the customer; transforming the customer data into a money laundering risk score of the customer for the period into Hawkins et al. because Nisal et al. teach including above features would enable to verify and validate customer identity, profile, business and account activity and relevant adverse information during time period and transforming into a risk score of the customer (Nisal et al.: paragraph [0025, 0036-0037]).
Hawkins et al. do not teach selecting a monitoring level from a first monitoring level and a second monitoring level to monitor the customer based on the money laundering risk score, the first monitoring level selected in response to the money laundering risk score being greater than a threshold, the second monitoring level selected in response to the money laundering risk score being less than the threshold.
Recce et al. teach the selecting a monitoring level from a first monitoring level and a second monitoring level to monitor the customer based on the money laundering risk score, the first monitoring level selected in response to the money laundering risk score being greater than a threshold, the second monitoring level selected in response to the money laundering risk score being less than the threshold (Recce et al., Fig. 1, Customer Risk Monitor Transaction Monitor (134) and data Access (10); Fig. 4C, Step 435-> YES/NO; paragraph [0004, 0175, 0216, 0228]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include selecting a monitoring level from a first monitoring level and a second monitoring level to monitor the customer based on the money laundering risk score, the first monitoring level selected in response to the money laundering risk score being greater than a threshold, the second monitoring level selected in response to the money laundering risk score being less than the threshold into Hawkins et al. because Recce et al. teach including above features would enable to provide additional scrutiny to a party having risk score exceeding threshold (Recce. et al., paragraph [0216]).
As per claim 2, Hawkins et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Hawkins et al. further tech the method in which
the transactional information of the customer is associated with at least one of cash, check, wire transfer, ATM (Automated Teller Machine), ACH (Automated Clearing House), credit card, debit card, prepaid card, electronic fund transfer, account opening, account closure, an account application, deposit, withdrawal, cancellation, balance check, inquiry, credit, debit, or a combination thereof (see Fig. 3D, Anticipated Account Activity: Part C _> Wire Transfer, ACH., Corporate Draft).
NIsal et al. teach period of transactional data of the customer is associated with at least one of cash, check, wire transfer, ATM (Automated Teller Machine), ACH (Automated Clearing House),credit card, debit card, prepaid card, electronic fund transfer, account opening, account closure, an account application, deposit, withdrawal, cancellation, balance check, inquiry, credit, debit, or a combination thereof ((see paragraph [0014, 0026]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the receiving, from a second computer system, customer data, which includes period of transactional data of the customer; transforming the customer data into a money laundering risk score of the customer for the period into Hawkins et al. because Nisal et al. teach including above features would enable to verify and validate customer identity, profile, business and account activity and relevant adverse information during time period and transforming into a risk score of the customer (Nisal et al.: paragraph [0025, 0036-0037]).
As per claim 3, Hawkins et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Hawkins et al. further tech the method in which
the customer data is associated with at least one of private data of the customer, public data of the customer, transactional data of the customer, historical data of the customer, current data of the customer, or a combination thereof (see abstract; Fig. 3A-Fig. 3E).
As per claim 4, Hawkins et al. teach claim 3 as described above. Hawkins et al. further tech the method in which
the private data of the customer is associated with at least background data of the customer (see Fig. 3A -3E: column 4, lines 36-67; where customer background data is elicited to subject customer to due diligent process according to Patriot Act).
As per claim 5, Hawkins et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Hawkins et al. further tech the method in which
the background data of the customer is associated with at least one of an industry category of the customer, a business type of the customer, a geographical area of the customer, a country of an address of the customer, a nature of a business of the customer, a product type of the business, a services type of the business, a structure of the business, a profession of the customer, a nationality of the customer, a historical record, a type of the transaction conducted, a balance of an account, funds inflow, funds outflow, a transactional pattern, a number of transactions, an amount of transactions, a transactional volume, a transactional frequency, a transactional derivative, a location of the transaction, a time of the transaction, a country of the transaction, a sender of a money transfer transaction, a location of the sender, a country of the sender, a nature of the sender, a recipient of a money transfer transaction, a location of the recipient, a country of the recipient, a nature of the recipient, a relationship, social status, political exposure, a historical transaction, a number of suspicious activity reports (SARs) filed for money laundering and terrorist financing cases, a category of a first financial institution, a business type of the first financial institution, geographical area of the first financial institution, country of a head office of the first financial institution, nature of the business of the first financial institution, age of a person, sex of the person, income level of the person, appearance of the person, judgment about the person, a personal condition of the person, a family condition of the person, a family member of the person, a family member’s condition of the person, a friend of the person, a friend’s condition of the person, a historical record of the person, an industry category of the person, a geographical area of the person, a country of an address of the person, a profession of the person, a job type of an employee, an education level of the employee, an income level of the employee, a length of employment at a current job, a performance review record, employment history, a duration of each employment in the
employment history, a reason for termination of each employment in the employment history, an age of the employee, a sex of the employee, a personal condition of the employee, a family condition of the employee, a family member of the employee, a family member’s condition of the employee, a friend’s condition of the employee, a historical record of the employee, a type of work performed, a number of transactions performed, an amount of transactions performed, a largest amount of transaction, a number of transactions with a particular counter party, an amount of transactions with a particular counter party, a number of changes of a crucial record, a number of changes of a crucial record associated with a particular counter party, a geographical area of an employee’s home, a geographical area of an employee’s office, a country of the address of the employee, a due diligence result of the customer, a length of an account history, a number of name matches with gambling organizations in transactions, or a combination thereof (see Fig. 3A to 3E).
As per claim 7, Hawkins et al. teach claim 1 as described above.
Hawkins et al. do not teach the threshold is defined by a person and/or a computer.
Recce et al. teach the threshold is defined by a person and/or a computer (see Fig. 2, Anti-Money Laundering SARS Generation Component (2.6): paragraph [0054]; where the component 2.6 evaluates the scores based on predetermined/set threshold to generate and send SAR to regulatory body if the scores exceed the threshold).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the threshold is defined by a person and/or a computer into Hawkins et al. because Recce et al. teach including above features would enable to provide additional scrutiny to a party having risk score exceeding threshold (Recce. et al., paragraph [0216])..
As per claim 8, Hawkins et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Hawkins et al. further tech the method in which
the first computer system comprises a single computer or a group of computers (see Fig. 1, Due Diligence Service Provider (102): Processor (102A)).
As per claim 9, Hawkins et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Hawkins et al. further tech the method in which
the second computer system comprises a single computer or a group of computers (see Fig. 1, Clients (110): where clients represents plurality computers of customer computer accessing system).
As per claim 10, Hawkins et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Hawkins et al. further tech the method in which
the third computer system comprises a single computer or a group of computers (see Fig. 1, Financial Institution (104)).
As per claim 11, Hawkins et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Hawkins et al. further tech the method in which
the customer is associated with an individual or an organization (see Fig. 3A; customer is associated with an organization/company).
As per claim 12, Hawkins et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Hawkins et al. further tech the method in which
the report comprises a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) (see column 7, lines 32-40; where financial institution and/or Due Diligence Service Provider issues Suspicious Activity Report).
As per claim 13, Hawkins et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Hawkins et al. further tech the method in which
the third second computer system is associated with a financial institution (see Fig. 1, Financial Institution (104)).
As per claim 14, Hawkins et al. teach claim 13 as described above. Hawkins et al. further tech the method in which
the financial institution comprises at least one of a bank, credit union, money services business, financial holding company, insurance company, insurance agency, mortgage company, mortgage agency, stockbroker, stock agency, bond broker, bond agency, commodity broker, commodity agency, trading company, trading agency, other financial service provider, other financial agency, stock exchange, commodity exchange, currency exchange, bond exchange, other exchange, funds manager, investment company, private equity firm, venture capital firm, virtual currency company, merchant acquirer, payment processor, payment card issuer, payment card program manager, internet merchant, other organization related to financial services, or a combination thereof (see column 1, lines 42-49).
As per claim 17, Hawkins et al. teach An advanced anti-money laundering system for monitoring a customer to detect money laundering activity, the first computer system (see Fig. 1, Due Diligence Service Provider (102), comprising:
at least one processor (see Fig.1, Processor (102A)); and
at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor and storing instructions (see Fig, 1, Data Storage Media (102B), and FCDD Database (102C) operable, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the first computer system execute steps as described in claim 1 above.
As per claim 18, Hawkins et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium of an advanced anti-money laundering system having program code recorded (see Fig, 1, Data Storage Media (102B), and FCDD Database (102C)) thereon for monitoring a customer to detect money laundering activity, the program code executed by a processor (see Fig. 1, Processor (102A)) and comprising steps as described in the claim 1 above.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Hawkins et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,930,228 (reference A in attached PTO-892) in view of Recce et al.., U.S. Pub No. 2009/0248465 (reference B in attached PTO-892) in view of Nisal et al., U.S. Pub No. 2013/0036038 (reference C in attached PTO-892) further in view of Kolhatkar et al., U.S Pub No. 2013/0018796 (reference D in attached PTO-892).
As per claims 15-16, Hawkins et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Hawkins et al. further tech the method in which
the fourth third computer system is associated with an organization (see column 7, lines 32-37; where financial institution and/or Due Diligence Service Provider file suspicious activity report).
Hawkins et al. do not teach the fourth third computer system is associated with a government organization and the government organization comprises a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
Kolhatkar et al. teach fourth third computer system is associated with a government organization and the government organization comprises a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) ((FinCEN) (see paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include fourth third computer system is associated with a government organization and the government organization comprises a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) ((FinCEN) into Hawkins et al. because Kolhatkar et al. teach including above features would enable to provide SAR report to FinCEN if score passed predetermined threshold 9see paragraph [0007 and 0059]).
Response to Arguments
New ground of rejections of claims necessitated by applicant amendment after careful consideration of applicant’s amendments and arguments, has been established in the instant application as described above. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
With respect to applicant rejection under U.S.C. 101, Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive. For subject matter eligibility, the examiner’s met by burden clearly articulating the reasons why the claimed invention is not eligible by providing a reasoned rationale with examples from Interim Eligibility Guidelines identifying the judicial exception recited in the claim and why it is considered an exception, and examined the additional elements in the independent and dependent claims and explained why they do not amount to significantly more than the exception. The analysis as described in Steps 2A and 2B of Eligibility Guidance above is sufficient as it incorporates “significantly more” consideration in step 2B even if claim includes an abstract idea.
The claims as recited is simply a process in which computer are invoked merely as a tool for implementing abstract ideas rather than specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities such as the self-reliant table for computer database in the Enfish or remote filtering tool at a specific location customizable filtering features specific to each end user" in BASCOM or "effect an improvement in technology or technical field" in McRO. The automating conventional activities using generic technology does not amount to an inventive concept (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358) as these simply describes "automation of a mathematical formula/relationship through use of generic-computer computer function (see OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 788, F.3d at 1363).
It is to be noted that the court rejected abstract idea of "filtering content in the Internet" in BASCOM, which is similar to “transmitting, to a third computer system, a request to conduct due diligence on the customer when the first monitoring level is selected; receiving, from the third computer system, an instruction to report the customer as having conducted a suspicious money laundering activity; and transmitting, to a fourth computer system, a report of the suspicious money laundering activity in response to receiving the instruction” in the claims in the instant application. It is only the significantly more steps that enabled of "installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end” as described in step two analysis of Mayo of the court decision made the claims in BASCOM patent eligible. An inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot be simply an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosures. The following are pertinent to current invention, though not relied upon:
Bosworth-Davies et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2003/0033228) teach countermeasures for irregularities in financial transactions.
Camenisch et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0294183) teach automatically validating a transaction, electronic payment system.
Chandler et al. (U. S. Pub No. 2010/0291531) teach system and method for facilitating a request for proposal process using auction.
Gillum (U.S. Pub No. 2004/0117316) teaches method for detecting suspicious transactions.
Grant et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2005/0267827) teach method and system to evaluate anti-money laundering risk.
Johnston (U.S. Pub No. 2010/0121833) teaches suspicious activity report initiation.
Morales et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2004/0215558) teach producing suspicious activity reports in financial transactions
Merrell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,801,811) teach money laundering risk management.
Quinn et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,544,727) teach anti-money laundering surveillance.
Smith et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0055852) teach event processing for detection of suspicious financial activity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1374. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-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 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 Feb 19, 2026