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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to applicant’s RCE with claims amendments/ arguments filed on 10/10/2025.
Priority Date: Prov.(10/05/2023)>(13/04/2023)
Claim Status:
Amended claims:1, 8 , and 15
Canceled claims: 7, and 14
Pending claims : 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
[1] Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
[2] Specifically, the independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the amended limitations with word-elements, such as, “modifying access privileges” for the account by: determining the first account action based on “a mapping of fraud status decisions” to account actions; are not found in specification or original claims. So, the amended limitations are considered new matter.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (Step-2A) If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, (Step-2B) it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include: (a) Mental processes; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practice; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal behavior or Relations between People]; and (c) Mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis is based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
[Step-1]: The claims are directed to a method/system/machine, which are a statutory category of invention.
The Claim 8 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for processing transaction data for fraud detection.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The claim 8 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim 8 recites the limitations of:
receiving, via a computing device, a message in connection with at least one transaction processed in connection with an account and flagged by the computing device as potentially being associated with a fraud status;
configuring a robotic process automation (RPA) software bot to access multiple application systems for collecting transaction evidence data associated with the at least one flagged transaction;
providing, by the RPA software bot via calls of an application programming interface (API) associated with a cloud-based database, collected data for an application comprising a low-code identity review app such that the data is actionable using the application;
update the database by creating a first database record associated with the at least one flagged transaction in the cloud-based database and storing in the first database record, evidence data gathered in connection with the at least one flagged transaction responsive to determining that neither RPA nor manual tasks in connection with the transaction performed using the application raises a runtime exception;
presenting, via a user interface on an agent computing device, the data collected by the RPA software bot; and
responsive to receiving, via the agent computing device, input of a fraud status decision, cause a software system to perform a first predefined account actions associated with the fraud status decision for modifying access privileges for the account by:
determining the first account action based on a mapping of fraud status decisions to account actions;
receiving, via the application, input of a transaction identifier and the fraud status decision in connection with the at least one transaction; and
transmitting, via calls of the API to the RPA software bot, a request to perform the first account action in connection with the transaction, the request including the transaction identifier and the fraud status decision.
The claimed method/system/machine simply describes series of steps for processing transaction data for fraud detection..
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via human commercial or business or transactional activities/interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human business activity. For example, without the structure elements language, the claim encompasses the activities that can be performed manually between the users and a third party. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are business interaction/sale activity that falls within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
[Step-2A]-Prong 2:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step-2B]:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including independent claims 1, and 15.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-6, 9-13 and 16-20 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 and 16-20 are directed towards, using the API calls comprise calls of an API associated with the cloud-based database for invoking one or more create, read, update, or delete operations; the application comprises a canvas app created using a platform for creating low-code tools to automate processes in a software sandbox environment; the database record comprises information describing at least one task performed by an RPA software bot and at least one task performed manually by a human agent; information describing at least one task performed by an RPA software bot and at least one task performed manually by a human agent, and the application provides a human agent with an option to claim a task associated with a flagged transaction.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under same rationale.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-6, 9-13 and 16-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention 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 35 U.S.C. 103 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hipp et al (US 2023/0012460 A1), in view of Cella et al (US 2022/0291666 A1), and Anderson et al (US 11,379,855 B1).
Ref claim 1 (amended), Hipp discloses a computing system, comprising: a processor; memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive, via a computing device, a message in connection with at least one transaction processed in connection with an account and flagged by the computing device as potentially being associated with a fraud status (para [0052]; via a fraud detection and prevention platform that can detect enumeration attacks real/near real time…the computing platform…analyze the received authorization attempts based on notification rules…suspicious status/authorization attempts…may also be flagged as being likely compromised and/or blocked…[0057]; via the disclosure may provide automated approval or denial of authorization attempts at a merchant level…improves technical operations and efficiency of …and significantly reduces fraudulent authorizations… automated fraud monitoring software can identify…attacks early…);
[[configure a robotic process automation (RPA) software bot to access multiple application systems for collecting transaction evidence data associated with the at least one flagged transaction;]]
receive, from the RPA software bot via calls of an application programming interface (API) associated with a cloud-based database, collected data for an application comprising a low-code identity review app such that the data is actionable using the application (para [0059]; Fig.1; via the disclosure at a high level and example problems and benefits…[0060-61]; via the user devices 110A-110N of Fig.1 …[0075]; via computing devices…the fraud detection and prevention computing platform 310…a data analysis engine 313, one or more notification listeners 314, and a data interface 315…[0077]; the data collection…APIs…); and
[[update the database by creating a first database record associated with the at least one flagged transaction in the cloud-based database and storing in the first database record, evidence data gathered in connection with the at least one flagged transaction responsive to determining that neither RPA nor manual tasks in connection with the transaction performed using the application raises a runtime exception]];
present, via a user interface on an agent computing device, the data collected by the RPA software bot comprising stored data of the first database record; and responsive to receiving, via the agent computing device, input of a fraud status decision, cause a software system to perform a first predefined account actions associated with the fraud status decision for modifying access privileges for the account by: (para [0077]; via the APIs…networks 130A-130N…[0079]; via the data collection…the data stored in the database…).
determining the first account action based on a mapping of fraud status decisions to account actions; receiving, via the application, input of a transaction identifier and the fraud status decision in connection with the at least one transaction (para [0081]; via the data analysis engine 313 configured to analyze the processed data stored in the database 312 to identify fraudulent activities at a merchant level….notification rules…account testing attacks. …Because fraudulent actors may funnel card testing attempts…more than one user accounts…[0094]; via the data analysis engine 313 may use query agents [e.g., software agents] to query the data…); and
transmitting, via calls of the API to the RPA software bot, a request to perform the first account action in connection with the transaction, the request including the transaction identifier and the fraud status decision (para [0077]; via the APIs…networks 130A-130N…[0079]; via the data collection [implied for transmitting a request…] …the data stored in the database…).
Hipp does not explicitly disclose the step to configure a robotic process automation (RPA) software bot to access multiple application systems for collecting transaction evidence data associated with the at least one flagged transaction.
However, Cella being in the same field of invention discloses the step to configure a robotic process automation (RPA) software bot to access multiple application systems for collecting transaction evidence data associated with the at least one flagged transaction (Abst. via a method for selecting an AI solution for an ARP …the action parameter…para [0289-290]; data collection for loans and fraud; [53,59] via the fraud detection model may be trained using training data…transaction and fraudulent transactions. …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Hipp to include the disclosures as taught by Cella to facilitate A ARP for collecting evidence data of flagged transaction.
Hipp does not explicitly disclose the step to update the database by creating a first database record associated with the at least one flagged transaction in the cloud-based database and storing in the first database record, evidence data gathered in connection with the at least one flagged transaction responsive to determining that neither RPA nor manual tasks in connection with the transaction performed using the application raises a runtime exception.
However, Anderson being in the same field of invention discloses the step to update the database by creating a first database record associated with the at least one flagged transaction in the cloud-based database and storing in the first database record, evidence data gathered in connection with the at least one flagged transaction responsive to determining that neither RPA nor manual tasks in connection with the transaction performed using the application raises a runtime exception (Abst. Figs. 1;via a system for prioritizing fraud cases includes a processing circuit and a network interface structured to receive fraud cases having transaction data and initial priority score…and restructure the case prioritization data based on the updated model….col. 2, line 61-65; via referring to the Figs.1-7, Systems. Methods and apparatuses for prioritizing fraud cases using artificial intelligence are described herein….. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Hipp to include the disclosures as taught by Anderson to facilitate fraud detection for financial transactions using AI.
Ref claim 2, Hipp discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the API calls comprise calls of an API associated with the cloud-based database for invoking one or more create, read, update, or delete operations (para [0077; via the APIs…networks 130A-130N…).
Ref claim 3, Hipp discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the application comprises a canvas app created using a platform for creating low-code tools to automate processes in a software sandbox environment (para [0057]; via the disclosure may provide automated approval or denial of authorization attempts at a merchant level…improve s technical operations and efficiency of …and significantly reduces fraudulent authorizations… automated fraud monitoring software can identify…attacks early…).
Ref claim 4, Hipp discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the database record comprises information describing at least one task performed by an RPA software bot and at least one task performed manually by a human agent (para [0057]; via the disclosure may provide automated approval or denial of authorization attempts at a merchant level…improve s technical operations and efficiency of …and significantly reduces fraudulent authorizations… automated fraud monitoring software can identify…attacks early…).
Ref claim 5, Hipp discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the application provides a human agent with an option to claim a task associated with a flagged transaction (para [0052]; via a fraud detection and prevention platform that can detect enumeration attacks real/near real time…the computing platform…analyze the received authorization attempts based on notification rules…suspicious status/authorization attempts…may also be flagged as being likely compromised and/or blocked…).
Ref claim 6, Hipp discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the RPA software bot is further configured to obtain data from the cloud-based database using API calls associated with the database (para [0077]; via the APIs…networks 130A-130N…[0079]; via the data collection…the data stored in the database…).
Claim 7(Canceled).
Claim 8 (Amended) recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 9-13 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 2-6 respectively.
Claim 14(Canceled).
Claim 15 (Amended) recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 16-20 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 2-6 respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/25/2025 have been fully considered and they are deemed to be non-persuasive:
Response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection is addressed in the above rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues further in substance that "The claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea and the claims Recite ‘Significantly More’ than abstract idea” and noted PEG-2019 [Step-2A-Prong One-Prong two-2B].
In addition to 101 rejections Applicant noted about 103 rejections with applied prior arts.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Updated claim analysis as a whole including amended features are provided above/again based on the latest Patent Eligibility Guidance [2019-PEG>Step 2A-Prong 1 & Prong 2-Step-2B].
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The rejection of the previous action was a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank I'ntl. 573 U.S. (2014); Under Alice.
Applicant’s REMARKS[09/25/2025]:
Amendments: (Noted)
Subject Matter Rejections:
“Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 on the basis that the claimed invention is allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For at least the following reasons, the Appellant respectfully submits that amended claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to eligible subject matter, as are all pending dependent claims.”
Legal Framework for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility:
“The framework for evaluating eligibility of a claim under examination is provided by the Alicel/Mayo2 two-part test. The first part …;…;…; a judicial exception(Step 2A). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. …;…;…;…determined fraud type.”
Step 2A: Claim 1 is Not Directed to an Abstract Idea:
“The Appellant submits that claim 1, as a whole, integrates the recited features into a practical application. In particular, the Appellant submits that claim 1 is eligible under Prong Two of Step 2A of USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 Guidance").
Claim 1 recites the elements of: "configure a robotic process automation (RPA) software bot to access multiple application systems for collecting transaction evidence data associated with the at least one flagged transaction", "update the database by storing, in a database record associated with the at least one flagged transaction, …;…;…;”
These elements of claim 1 represent improvements to a system of automated case management for fraud detection and analysis. …;…;…,reflect technical advantages of enhancements to a system for configuring RPA software bots to be integrated into a fraud detection system.”
Step 2B: Claim 1 Amounts to Significantly More Than an Alleged Abstract Idea:
“This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to "significantly more" than the alleged exception. The Appellant submits that claim 1 recites elements which, in combination, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. …;…;…; In particular, the limitations in claim 1 are not considered to be insignificant. Claim 1, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than one or more alleged abstract ideas.
For at least the reasons presented above, the Appellant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patent eligible. For similar reasons, independent claim 11, which contains similar features as claim 1, is also eligible, as are all pending dependent claims.”
IN RESPONSE: Examiner Disagrees:
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 1: A method for deriving financial information from transaction data is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(receiving,.., a message in connection with at least one transaction processed in connection with an account and flagged …with a fraud status; configuring a robotic process automation (RPA) software bot to access multiple application systems for collecting transaction evidence data … flagged transaction; providing,…, collected data for an application comprising a low-code identity review…; updating the database by creating a database record … flagged transaction in the cloud-based database and storing, in the first database record, evidence data gathered in connection with the at least one flagged transaction … raises a runtime exception; presenting,…, the data collected by the RPA software bot …first database record; and responsive to receiving …, cause a software system to perform a first predefined account actions associated with the fraud status decision for modifying access privilege for the account by: determining …account actions; receiving…transaction; and transmitting, via calls of the API to the RPA software bot,…the fraud status decision.)
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping (b) of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions’).
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of:
(receiving,.., a message in connection with at least one transaction processed in connection with an account and flagged …with a fraud status; configuring a robotic process automation (RPA) software bot to access multiple application systems for collecting transaction evidence data … flagged transaction; providing,…, collected data for an application comprising a low-code identity review…; updating the database by creating a database record … flagged transaction in the cloud-based database and storing, in the first database record, evidence data gathered in connection with the at least one flagged transaction … raises a runtime exception; presenting,…, the data collected by the RPA software bot …first database record; and responsive to receiving …, cause a software system to perform a first predefined account actions associated with the fraud status decision for modifying access privilege for the account by: determining …account actions; receiving…transaction; and transmitting, via calls of the Ali to the RPA software bot,…the fraud status decision.)
do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. “receiving,..,… transaction processed in connection with an account and flagged …with a fraud status; configuring a robotic process automation (RPA) software bot to … flagged transaction; providing,…, collected data for an application comprising a low-code identity review…; updating by creating a database record … flagged transaction in the cloud-based database and storing, in the first database record, evidence data … raises a runtime exception; presenting,…, the data collected by the RPA software bot …first database record; and responsive to receiving …, cause a software system to perform a first predefined account actions associated with the fraud status decision for modifying access privilege for the account by: determining …account actions; receiving…transaction; and transmitting, …,…the fraud status decision.”)
do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification [0011-19]: processor, memory, instructions, storage medium, and electrical communication) as tools to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (g)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Alice-Step (2B): Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., processor, equations, instructions, memory, electrical communication, and storage medium) amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or merely using generic components as tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-6, 9-13 and 16-20 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims 2-6, 9-13 and 16-20 are directed towards:
using the API calls comprise calls of an API associated with the cloud-based database for invoking one or more create, read, update, or delete operations; the application comprises a canvas app created using a platform for creating low-code tools to automate processes in a software sandbox environment; the database record comprises information describing at least one task performed by an RPA software bot and at least one task performed manually by a human agent; information describing at least one task performed by an RPA software bot and at least one task performed manually by a human agent, and the application provides a human agent with an option to claim a task associated with a flagged transaction.
These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “ apply it ( or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional function or (See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and (f)).
Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because associated technological elements amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions.
Examiner notes that the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related or economic problem. The focus of the claimed invention in the present is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.”
Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Obviousness Rejections:
Applicant argued that, “Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 on the basis that the claims are allegedly obvious having regard to Hipp (US 2023/0012460) in view of Cella (US 2022/0291666) and Anderson (US 11,379,855).
For at least the following reasons, the Applicant submits that amended claims 1, 8, and 15 are patentable over the cited references, as are all pending dependent claims.
Claim 1:
Claim 1, as amended, recites "responsive to receiving, via the agent computing device, input of a fraud status decision, cause a software system to perform a first predefined account actions associated with the fraud status decision for modifying access privileges for the account by: determining the first account action based on a mapping of fraud status decisions to account actions". The cited references do not teach or suggest this feature of claim 1.
The Office Action alleged that Hipp discloses "responsive to receiving... input of a fraud status decision, cause a digital worker to perform one or more predefined account actions associated with the fraud status decision", citing…;…;…;…;
Hipp thus describes rules for triggering notifications that are indicative of a suspicious status for merchants. There is no discussion in Hipp of a predefined account action for modifying access privileges for a user account in response to receipt of a fraud status decision.…;…;…;…;…;…;
The other cited references do not remedy the deficiencies of Hipp. For at least these reasons, the Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is patentable over the cited art. For similar reasons, independent claims 8 and 15, which contain similar features as amended claim 1, are also patentable, as are all pending dependent claims.
In view of the above, the presently pending claims are believed to be in condition for immediate allowance. Allowance is, therefore, respectfully requested.”
IN RESPONSE: Examiner Disagrees with applicant’s assertions:
However, Hipp discloses [obviously] all limitations, in views of Cella [newly added] art] and Anderson.
Applicant specifically argued that, “Hipp discloses "responsive to receiving... input of a fraud status decision, cause a digital worker to perform one or more predefined account actions associated with the fraud status decision", citing paragraphs [0081] and [0094] of Hipp as support. Hipp relates to methods for detecting and preventing suspicious payment card authorization attempts at a merchant level. Hipp describes a "data analysis engine 313" that analyzes processed data stored in a database to identify fraudulent activities. The data analysis Page 12 of 14 engine determines notification rules for the identification of potential enumeration attacks and account testing attacks and of compromised merchants and/or individual user accounts due to the attacks. …;….;
The other cited references do not remedy the deficiencies of Hipp. For at least these reasons, the Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is patentable over the cited art. For similar reasons, independent claims 8 and 15, which contain similar features as amended claim 1, are also patentable, as are all pending dependent claims.”
Moreover, Cella being in the same field of invention discloses the step to configure a robotic process automation (RPA) software bot to access multiple application systems for collecting transaction evidence data associated with the at least one flagged transaction (Abst. via a method for selecting an AI solution for an ARP …the action parameter…para [0289-290]; data collection for loans and fraud; [53,59] via the fraud detection model may be trained using training data…transaction and fraudulent transactions. …); and
Anderson being in the same field of invention discloses the step to update the database by creating a first database record associated with the at least one flagged transaction in the cloud-based database and storing in the first database record, evidence data gathered in connection with the at least one flagged transaction responsive to determining that neither RPA nor manual tasks in connection with the transaction performed using the application raises a runtime exception (Abst. Figs. 1;via a system for prioritizing fraud cases includes a processing circuit and a network interface structured to receive fraud cases having transaction data and initial priority score…and restructure the case prioritization data based on the updated model….col. 2, line 61-65; via referring to the Figs.1-7, Systems. Methods and apparatuses for prioritizing fraud cases using artificial intelligence are described herein….. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Hipp to include the disclosures as taught by Anderson to facilitate fraud detection for financial transactions using AI.
CONCLUSION
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alford et al (US 11588836 B2) discloses Systems and Methods relating to Neural Network-based API Request Pattern Analysis For Real-time Insider Threat Detection.
Zoldi et al (US 20160100009 A1) discloses CLOUD PROCESS For Rapid DATA Investigation and Data Integrity Analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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. 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.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691