The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 11 August 2023. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-20.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-20 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1 / 11 / 19, the claim recites a process / machine / article of manufacturing, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites:
(a)“the base graph comprising a plurality of nodes connected via a plurality of edges, the plurality of nodes comprising a plurality of labeled nodes, and a plurality of unlabeled nodes, each node of the plurality of labeled nodes labeled with one of a fraudulent label and a non-fraudulent label” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting server computer, processor, computer-readable medium coupled with the processors, the base graph structure, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe mathematical relationships and algorithms. Mathematical relationship and algorithms have been found by the courts to be abstract ideas, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) A. Mathematical Relationships, iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
(b) “… assigning, by the server system …, one of the fraudulent label and the non-fraudulent label to each unlabeled node of the plurality of unlabeled nodes based, at least in part, on the base graph, wherein the assigning comprises performing a first set of operations comprising: … assigning one of the fraudulent label and the non-fraudulent label to each unlabeled node of the plurality of unlabeled nodes based, at least in part, on the final node representation for the corresponding unlabeled node” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “assigning”, in the limitation citied above encompasses observe / process abstract graphical model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas;
(c) “generating a plurality of sub-graphs based, at least in part, on splitting the base graph, each sub-graph of the plurality of sub-graphs comprising a subset of nodes from the plurality of nodes, each subset of nodes corresponding to a particular label, generating …, a plurality of filtered sub-graphs based, at least in part, on the plurality of sub-graphs and a set of pre-defined threshold values, generating …, a plurality of sets of embeddings based, at least in part, on the plurality of filtered sub-graphs, each set of embeddings of the plurality of sets of embeddings generated corresponding to each filtered sub-graph of the plurality of filtered sub-graphs, generating an aggregated node embedding for each node of the plurality of nodes based, at least in part, on aggregating the plurality of sets of embeddings using an aggregation function, generating …, a final node representation for each node of the plurality of nodes based, at least in part, on the aggregated node embedding for each node of the plurality of nodes” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “assigning”, in the limitation citied above encompasses observe / process abstract graphical model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) generic computer elements (e.g., computer, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium storing instruction to be executed by process), which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “accessing, by a server system, a base graph associated with a plurality of entities….” , which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)); (c) “transaction database”, which is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea (see MPEP2106.05(f)) and/or merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); (d) “via a Graph Neural Network (GNN) model”, “Siamese Neural Network (SNN) model”, “via a dense layer of the GNN model”, which is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea (see MPEP2106.05(f)) and/or merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer element merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “accessing, by a server system, a base graph associated with a plurality of entities …”, is insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). The additional element of “transaction database” is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea (see MPEP2106.05(f)) and/or merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional element of “via a Graph Neural Network (GNN) model”, “Siamese Neural Network (SNN) model”, “via a dense layer of the GNN model” is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea (see MPEP2106.05(f)) and/or merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-10 / 12-18 / 20 are dependent on claim 1 / 11 /19, and include all the limitations of claim 1 / 11 / 19. Therefore, claims 2-10 / 12-18 / 20 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2 / 12 / 20, the claim further recites limitation “… extracting, by the server system, a plurality of graph features based, at least in part, on the historical payment transaction data; and generating, by the server system, the base graph based, at least in part, on the plurality of graph features, the base graph being a homogeneous graph …”, recites further steps for abstract graph model processing, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The limitation citied above encompasses evaluate / process data, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea.
The claim recited additional element of : (a) “accessing, by the server system, historical payment …” which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post solution data (MPEP.2106.05(g)); (b) “…transaction data from the transaction database associated with the server system, the historical payment transaction data comprising labeled and unlabeled electronic transaction data associated with the plurality of entities”, which is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea (MPEP2106.05(f)) and/or merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “accessing, by the server system, historical payment …” is insignificant extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post solution data (MPEP.2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). The additional element of “…transaction data from the transaction database associated with the server system, the historical payment transaction data comprising labeled and unlabeled electronic transaction data associated with the plurality of entities”, is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea (MPEP2106.05(f)) and/or merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3 / 13, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the plurality of sub-graphs further comprises a first sub-graph, a second sub-graph, and a third sub-graph, the first sub-graph comprising the subset of nodes from the plurality of labeled nodes labeled with the fraudulent label, the second sub-graph comprising the subset of nodes from the plurality of labeled nodes labeled with the non-fraudulent label, and the third sub-graph comprising the subset of nodes from the plurality of unlabeled nodes”, recites further steps for abstract graph model processing, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The limitation citied above encompasses evaluate / process data, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4 / 14, The claim further recited limitation of “partitioning the plurality of edges in the base graph into a set of positive pairs and a set of negative pairs, the set of positive pairs representing nodes from the plurality of nodes that have same labels and the set of negative pairs representing nodes from the plurality of nodes that have different labels; initializing the SNN model based, at least in part, on one or more neural network parameters, the SNN model comprising a first SNN and a second SNN, the first SNN and the second SNN being identical; computing a contrastive loss based, at least in part, on the set of positive pairs, the set of negative pairs, and a contrastive loss function; and updating iteratively till the contrastive loss is minimized, the one or more neural network parameters based, at least in part, on the contrastive loss”, which is further steps for abstract graph model processing, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The limitation citied above encompasses evaluate / process data, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim recites additional element “training, by the server system, the SNN model based, at least in part, on performing a second set of operations“, which is recited at a high-level of generality without any detail as to how this training is performed. Therefore, this limitation amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5 / 15, the claim recites further limitation of “computing … …, a first output score corresponding to a first node in a corresponding pair connected via a particular edge with a second node for each node in the each sub-graph of the plurality of sub-graphs; computing, …, a second output score corresponding to the second node in the corresponding pair connected via the particular edge with the first node for each node in the each sub-graph of the plurality of sub-graphs; computing …, a euclidean distance based, at least in part, on the first output score and the second output score; and filtering, [by the server system], each sub-graph of the plurality of sub-graphs to generate the plurality of filtered sub-graphs based, at least in part, on the euclidean distance and a pre-defined threshold value corresponding to the each sub-graph from the set of pre-defined threshold values”, recites further steps for abstract graph model processing, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The limitation citied above encompasses evaluate / process data, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6 / 16, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the plurality of sets of embeddings comprises a first set of embeddings corresponding to a first filtered sub-graph, a second set of embeddings corresponding to a second filtered sub-graph, and a third set of embeddings corresponding to a third filtered sub-graph”, recites further steps for abstract graph model processing, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The limitation citied above encompasses evaluate / process data, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7 / 17, the claim recites limitation “wherein assigning one of the fraudulent label and the non-fraudulent label to each unlabeled node of the plurality of unlabeled nodes further comprises: computing …; and performing … at least one of: assigning the fraudulent label to the corresponding unlabeled node based, at least in part, on determining that the computed final score for the corresponding unlabeled node is at least equal to a pre-defined threshold score, and assigning the non-fraudulent label to the corresponding unlabeled node based, at least in part, on determining that the computed final score for the corresponding unlabeled node is lesser than the pre-defined threshold score”, recites further steps for abstract graph model processing, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The limitation citied above encompasses evaluate / process data, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
the claim recites limitation “a final score for each unlabeled node of the plurality of unlabeled nodes based, at least in part, on applying a sigmoid function to the final node representation for the corresponding unlabeled node”, which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting server computer, processor, computer-readable medium coupled with the processors, the steps of applying a sigmoid function, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe mathematical relationships and algorithms. Mathematical relationship and algorithms have been found by the courts to be abstract ideas, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) A. Mathematical Relationships, iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas
Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8 / 18, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein assigning one of the fraudulent label and the non-fraudulent label to each unlabeled node of the plurality of unlabeled nodes further comprises: classifying, … via a classifier, each unlabeled node of the plurality of unlabeled nodes as one of the fraudulent node and the non-fraudulent node based, at least in part, on a classification loss and the final node representation for the corresponding unlabeled node; and assigning … one of the fraudulent label and the non-fraudulent label to each unlabeled node of the plurality of unlabeled nodes based, at least in part, on the classifying step”, recites further steps for abstract graph model processing, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The limitation citied above encompasses evaluate / process data, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the server system is a payment server associated with a payment network”, which is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea (see MPEP2106.05(f)) and/or merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 10, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the GNN model is a Split-Filter-Aggregate Graph Neural Network (SFA-GNN) based model” (mental process and/or math concept), recites further steps for abstract graph model processing, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The limitation citied above encompasses evaluate / process data, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter Analysis
Claims 1-20 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-20.
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 11 August 2023, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
Regarding the amended independent claims, the primary reason for the allowance is the inclusion of the specific claimed process / structure of generating graph neural network model for fraudulent transaction detection with fraudulent / non-fraudulent label using Siamese Neural Network models.
Claims 11, 19 are substantially similar to claim 1. The arguments as given above for claim 1, are applied, mutatis mutandis, to claims 11, 19, therefore the allowance reasoning of claim 1 are applied accordingly.
None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claims 1, 11 and 19.
Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed.
The followings are references close to the invention claimed:
Morris et al., US-PATENT NO.11710033B2 [hereafter Morris] teaches ML using graphical model. However Morris does not teach the specific claimed process of generating graph neural network model for fraudulent transaction detection with fraudulent / non-fraudulent label using Siamese Neural Network models.
Raghavan et al., US-PATENT NO.11861882B2 [hereafter Raghavan] teaches product labeling with graphical models. However Raghavan does not teach the specific claimed process of generating graph neural network model for fraudulent transaction detection with fraudulent / non-fraudulent label using Siamese Neural Network models.
Lee et al., US-PATENT NO.11544535B2 [hereafter Lee] teaches data modeling with graph neural networks However Lee does not teach the specific claimed process of generating graph neural network model for fraudulent transaction detection with fraudulent / non-fraudulent label using Siamese Neural Network models.
Cheng et al., “Graph neural network for fraud detection via spatial-temporal attention”, IEEE Tran. On knowledge and data engineering, vol.34, No.8, Aug.2022 [hereafter Cheng] teaches GNN for fraud detection. However Cheng does not teach the specific claimed process of generating graph neural network model for fraudulent transaction detection with fraudulent / non-fraudulent label using Siamese Neural Network models.
Tan et al., “Graph neural network for Ethereum fraud detection”, 2021 IEEE international conference on big knowledge, 2021 [hereafter Tan] teaches GNN model for blockchain fraud detection. However Tan does not teach the specific claimed process of generating graph neural network model for fraudulent transaction detection with fraudulent / non-fraudulent label using Siamese Neural Network models.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
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.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights