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
Applicant filed an amendment on February 04, 2026. Claims 1-25 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 13, 21, and 25 are amended. Claims 26-27 have been added. Claims 22-23 have been canceled, with claims 8, 10, 14 and 19 remaining canceled. Claims 1, 13, and 21 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1, 13, and 21. Thus claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15-18, 20-21, and 24-27 are currently pending. Claims 13, 21, and 25 have been amended, however, the claim status identifiers have been currently submitted as “Previously Presented”, instead of “Currently Amended”, to reflect that the cited claims have been amended. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “the claim is directed to a specific unsupervised machine-learning process for dynamically adjusting and enhancing the security of online accounts; the specification highlights the technical benefits of the claimed approach, which allows the computing system to process large volumes of data efficiently and adapt in real-time to prevent network attacks; the techniques further allow for more accuracy in identifying unauthorized transactions, which improves scalability such as by reducing false positives and avoiding implementing burdensome security measures when not needed; enhanced accuracy also equates to a more robust machine learning model/unsupervised machine learning process; that the claims recite a specific, unconventional, and novel unsupervised machine learning process, as noted in the updated subject matter eligibility guidelines in view of the Ex Parte Desjardins decision; the claims are directed to improvements in both the operation of machine learning models/processes and system performance based on adjustments/configurations of the parameters of the ML cluster model; these improvements are specifically highlighted in the specification, and the techniques reduce false positives while avoiding wasting computing resources implementing security measures when not needed by using the model outputs to selectively enable/disable security measures on an account-by-account basis as directly recited in the claims; these features are directed to technical improvements and recite a practical application and/or significantly more than a method of organizing human activity (or a mathematical concept); the above operations for dynamically enabling/disabling resources to balance between resource usage and system security are not conventional or routine, and as such, the claims recite an inventive concept; and the claims are directed to a practical application and/or inventive concept as the claims recite limitations that, when considered individually or as a whole, are directed to solving a problem rooted in technology.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20250094989 A1, para 1), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘989 A1, para 1), discloses that the invention relates to transaction monitoring providing cross cluster transaction risk assessment, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “obtaining, by an unsupervised machine learning process executing on a computing system, customer transaction data comprising a plurality of transaction details”, “ filtering, by the computing system, a list of accounts based on the risk score for each transaction”, and “selectively enabling, by the computing system, a security measure on an account-by-account basis based on the risk score predicted for each transaction, wherein the computing system performs at least one of locking an account or blocking a transaction based on at least one risk score for at least one associated transaction exceeding a threshold”, which represent the abstract idea of “transaction risk assessment”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Additionally, the claim recites “clustering, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, the customer transaction data into clusters of transactions based on the transaction details”; “calculating, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, a centroid for each cluster of transactions, the centroid representing a transaction corresponding to a mean value within the corresponding cluster”; “clustering, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, transactions across multiple customers within a posting period to determine a centroid for each of the customers”; and “calculating, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, a risk score for each transaction, wherein the unsupervised machine learning process calculates the risk score for the transaction as a function of (a) a relationship score determined based on a distance between the transaction and a centroid of the cluster of transactions to which the transaction is assigned and (b) cross-cluster deviations between other transactions and the centroid for other clusters to which the other transactions are assigned ”, which are a series of mathematical operations and/or concepts. The mathematical operations and/or concepts are in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. And, therefore, the claim continues to recite an abstract idea as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas is still abstract, “Adding one abstract idea (mathematical operations and/or concepts) to another abstract idea (transaction risk assessment) … does not render the claim non-abstract.” (RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “an unsupervised machine learning process executing on a computing system”, and “wherein the computing system performs”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as it represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transaction risk assessment”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “transaction risk assessment”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and grouped under “Mathematical Concepts”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transaction risk assessment”. The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for “transaction risk assessment”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea, “transaction risk assessment”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a transaction risk assessment concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 13 also recites the abstract idea of “transaction risk assessment “, as well as the additional elements of “a system comprising: at least one device including one or more hardware processors; an unsupervised machine learning process; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause operations comprising: …”, “an unsupervised machine learning process executing on the system”, “the computing system”, and “wherein the system performs”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transaction risk assessment”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “transaction risk assessment” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more hardware processors” and “an unsupervised machine learning process executed on the system”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 13 is non-statutory.
Claim 21 also recites the abstract idea of “transaction risk assessment “, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising: …”, “an unsupervised machine learning process executing on a computing system”, and “wherein the computing system performs” , which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transaction risk assessment”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “transaction risk assessment” using computer technology (e.g., “a computing system” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 21 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, for paragraphs 21-22 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated November 04, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, moot. Applicant has amended so that claim 1 now recites “selectively enabling, by the computing system, a security measure on an account-by-account basis as a function of the risk score for each transaction, …”. This amendment finds support in the specification, (PG Pub US 20250094989 A1, para 84), which recites “… the system may use the output scores to filter or sort a list of customer accounts based on the severity and/or volume of risky transactions associated with each account.
Additionally or alternatively, the system may selectively enable or disable security measures on an account-by-account basis based on the predicted risk scores. Specification, (‘989 A1, para 85), is directed to the security measures that are selectively enabled or disabled varying and being configurable by a system administrator, and providing examples of security measures, such as sending a one-time password to the user after the system locks an account and/or blocks a transaction of one or more transactions have a risk score exceeding a threshold, with the account remaining locked and the transactions blocked until the password is received from the user to confirm the activity. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, paragraphs 21-22 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated November 04, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, paragraph 24 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 04, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, moot. Claim 13 continues to recite “filtering, by the computing system, a list of accounts …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the computing system” in claim 13. Dependent claims 15-18 and 20, which depend from claim 13, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.05 (e)). Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Antecedent Basis, paragraph 24 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 04, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 25 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 04, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Claim 13 continues to recite “A system comprising: … one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause operations comprising: … filtering, by the computing system, a list of accounts …; selectively enabling, by the system, a security measure …” It is not clear whether the one or more hardware processors or the computing system or the system or some combination thereof, are performing the limitations “filtering”, and “selectively enabling”. MPEP § 2173.02 I recites “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” Therefore, the scope of claim 13 is unclear. Dependent claims 15-18 and 20, which depend from claim 13, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.02 I and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 25 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 04, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 26 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 04, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Claim 21 continues to recite “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising: obtaining, by an unsupervised machine learning process executing on a computing system, …; clustering, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, …; calculating, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, …; clustering, the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, …; calculating, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, …” It is not clear whether the one or more hardware processors or the unsupervised machine learning process or the computing system or some combination thereof, are performing the limitations “obtaining”, “clustering”, “calculating”, “clustering”, and “calculating”. MPEP § 2173.02 I recites “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”
Claim 21 also recites “filtering, by the computing system, …; selectively enabling, by the computing system, …” It is not clear whether the one or more hardware processors or the computing system or some combination thereof, are performing the limitations “filtering” and “selectively enabling”. MPEP § 2173.02 I recites “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” Therefore, the scope of claim 21 is unclear. Dependent claims 24-27, which depend from claim 21, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.02 I and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 26 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated November 04, 2025.
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 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15-18, 20-21, and 24-27 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 1-7, 9, and 11-12 are directed to “a method”, claims 13, 15-18, and 20 are directed to “a system”, and claims 21 and 24-27 are directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “transaction risk assessment”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “obtaining, by an unsupervised machine learning process executing on a computing system, customer transaction data comprising a plurality of transaction details”, “ filtering, by the computing system, a list of accounts based on the risk score for each transaction”, and “selectively enabling, by the computing system, a security measure on an account-by-account basis based on the risk score predicted for each transaction, wherein the computing system performs at least one of locking an account or blocking a transaction based on at least one risk score for at least one associated transaction exceeding a threshold”, which represent the abstract idea of “transaction risk assessment”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Additionally, the claim recites “clustering, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, the customer transaction data into clusters of transactions based on the transaction details”; “calculating, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, a centroid for each cluster of transactions, the centroid representing a transaction corresponding to a mean value within the corresponding cluster”; “clustering, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, transactions across multiple customers within a posting period to determine a centroid for each of the customers”; and “calculating, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, a risk score for each transaction, wherein the unsupervised machine learning process calculates the risk score for the transaction as a function of (a) a relationship score determined based on a distance between the transaction and a centroid of the cluster of transactions to which the transaction is assigned and (b) cross-cluster deviations between other transactions and the centroid for other clusters to which the other transactions are assigned ”, which are a series of mathematical operations and/or concepts. The mathematical operations and/or concepts are in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. And, therefore, the claim continues to recite an abstract idea as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas is still abstract, “Adding one abstract idea (mathematical operations and/or concepts) to another abstract idea (transaction risk assessment) … does not render the claim non-abstract.” (RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “an unsupervised machine learning process executing on a computing system”, and “wherein the computing system performs”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as it represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transaction risk assessment”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of “transaction risk assessment” using computer technology (e.g., “an unsupervised machine learning process executing on a computing system”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 13 also recites the abstract idea of “transaction risk assessment “, as well as the additional elements of “a system comprising: at least one device including one or more hardware processors; an unsupervised machine learning process; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause operations comprising: …”, “an unsupervised machine learning process executing on the system”, “the computing system”, and “wherein the system performs”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transaction risk assessment”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “transaction risk assessment” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more hardware processors” and “an unsupervised machine learning process executed on the system”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 13 is non-statutory.
Claim 21 also recites the abstract idea of “transaction risk assessment “, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising: …”, “an unsupervised machine learning process executing on a computing system”, and “wherein the computing system performs” , which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transaction risk assessment”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “transaction risk assessment” using computer technology (e.g., “a computing system” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 21 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-12, 15-18, 20, and 24-27 further describe the abstract idea of “transaction risk assessment”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 13, and 21.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-12, 15-18, 20, and 24-27 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “transaction risk assessment”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Hence, claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15-18, 20-21, and 24-27 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13, 15-18, and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Antecedent Basis
Claim 13 recites “filtering, by the computing system, …” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the computing system” in claim 13. Dependent claims 15-18 and 20, which depend on claim 13, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.05 (e)).
Unclear Scope
Claim 13 recites “A system comprising: … one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause operations comprising: … filtering, by the computing system, a list of accounts …; selectively enabling, by the system, a security measure …” It is not clear whether the one or more hardware processors or the computing system or the system or some combination thereof, are performing the limitations “filtering”, and “selectively enabling”. MPEP § 2173.02 I recites “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” Therefore, the scope of claim 13 is unclear. Dependent claims 15-18 and 20, which depend from claim 13, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.02 I and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Claim 21 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising: obtaining, by an unsupervised machine learning process executing on a computing system, …; clustering, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, …; calculating, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, …; clustering, the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, …; calculating, by the unsupervised machine learning process executing on the computing system, …” It is not clear whether the one or more hardware processors or the unsupervised machine learning process or the computing system or some combination thereof, are performing the limitations “obtaining”, “clustering”, “calculating”, “clustering”, and “calculating”. MPEP § 2173.02 I recites “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”
Claim 21 also recites “filtering, by the computing system, …; selectively enabling, by the computing system, …” It is not clear whether the one or more hardware processors or the computing system or some combination thereof, are performing the limitations “filtering” and “selectively enabling”. MPEP § 2173.02 I recites “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” Therefore, the scope of claim 21 is unclear. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 25-26. Dependent claims 24-27, which depend from claim 21, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.02 I and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vachher et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230334496 A1) – Automated Transaction Clustering Based On Rich, Non-Human Filterable Risk Elements
Vachher discloses a system and methods to automatically analyze clusters of suspicious transactions. The system includes a processor configured to: receive a group of risk factors, and a group of suspicious transactions, each with a respective set of values for the risk factors. With a clustering algorithm, based on the risk factor values for the transactions, the processor is configured to generate a number of data clusters, and assign each transaction to a cluster. For each cluster, the processor is configured to, for each risk factor, compute a respective cluster mean and cluster standard deviation; identify risk factors for which the cluster standard deviation is below a respective threshold value; and generate a list of the identified risk factors and their respective cluster means and cluster standard deviations, ranked in order of their respective cluster standard deviations.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 May 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights