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 Final office action is in response to applicant’s Claims amendments/Arguments filed on 09/29/2025.
Priority Date: Prov.(10/18/2023)
Claim Status:
Amended claims: 1,7,and 13
Pending claims : 1-20
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 1-20 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 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)-(see MPEP § 2106.04(II) and 2106.04(d).
[Step-1] The claims are directed to a methods/machine, which are a statutory category of invention.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for enabling real-time graph machine learning models using Bitwise Transaction Graph Frameworks.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The claim 1 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim recites the limitations of:
receiving, by the bitwise transaction graph…, a current transaction from a merchant for decisioning comprising a customer identifier for a customer, a card number or a card reference number, a merchant identifier for a merchant, a transaction authorization time, a transaction risk score, and a set of real-time fraud risk attributes;
converting, …, the current transaction to a fixed length data structure comprising a number of bits;
storing, …, a transaction graph comprising a plurality of vertices and edges with the fixed length data structure onto an edge between a first vertex representing the customer and a second vertex representing the merchant, wherein the plurality of historical transactions are stored as byte sequences on the edges;
extracting, by a fraud detection…, aggregated features for a transaction based on a query submitted by the fraud detection … program to the bitwise transaction graph … program with arguments extracted from the transaction,
wherein the query comprises a time cutoff that filters out information after a time threshold based on a time of the querying,
wherein the aggregated features comprising relative risk of the transaction compared to historical transactions associated with the card number or card reference; and
rejecting, by the fraud detection…, the transaction based on the extracted aggregated features.
The claimed method/system/machine simply describes series of steps for Real-time Graph Machine Learning Models using Bitwise Transaction Graph Frameworks.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via fundamental economic practices like mitigating risk, and commercial or business 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 7, and 13.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20 are directed towards:
Using claims [2-4, 8-12, 14-15] the historical transactions further comprises a card present or card not present indication, a merchant location, a merchant category code, an acquiring bank identification number, a transaction amount, and/or fraud label; the transaction risk score comprises a Visa Advanced Authorization (VAA) risk score, wherein a first portion of the fixed length data structure comprises the transaction authorization time represented relative to a point in time, and Claims (5-6, 16-19, 20), wherein a second portion of the fixed length data structure comprises a representation of the transaction risk score, and wherein the fixed length data structure has a length of 32 bits; the darknet risk factor is based on a number of high risk or fraud transactions for card number; wherein the decisioning is further based on business rules.
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, 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS:
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/29/2025 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 are similar to previous arguments already submitted and addressed on last office action. Examiner incorporates herein the response to arguments mailed on May 7, 2025.
Applicant argues further with 101 rejection 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 & Step-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 all features are provided above again based on the latest Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance [2019-PEG].
Claims 1-20 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 III-REMARKS:
Status Of The Claims:
“Claims 1-20 are pending in the application, with claims 1, 7, and 13 being independent claims. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are amended with the amendments in this response. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the rejections and allowance of these claims for at least the following reasons”…(Noted).
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant argued in briefs that, “Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Specifically, the Office Action contends that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, do not integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite "significantly more" than the alleged judicial exception. See Office Action, pages 2-5. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A includes two prongs: Under Prong One, the inquiry is whether the claims recite a judicial exception. …;…;If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, Prong Two requires an evaluation as to …;…;…;
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims do indeed integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application….;…;…;
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are directed to statutory subject matter, and respectfully requests that this rejection be withdrawn.”
IN RESPONSE: Examiner Disagrees:
Claim Analysis is based on the Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)-(see MPEP § 2106.04(II) and 2106.04(d).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 1: A method for deriving financial information from transactions 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, by a bitwise transaction graph …, a plurality of historical transactions, …, a transaction authorization time, a transaction risk score, and a set of real-time fraud risk attributes; converting, …, the historical transactions to a fixed length data structure…of bits; storing, …, the fixed length data structure onto edges of a transaction graph, wherein each vertex of the transaction graph represents one of the customers or one of the merchants,…are stored as byte sequences on the edges; extracting, by a fraud detection …, aggregated features for a transaction based on a query submitted …, wherein the query…, wherein the aggregated features … card reference; and rejecting,…the transaction based on the extracted aggregated features.)
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, by a bitwise transaction graph …, a plurality of historical transactions, …, a transaction authorization time, a transaction risk score, and a set of real-time fraud risk attributes; converting, …, the historical transactions to a fixed length data structure…of bits; storing, …, the fixed length data structure onto edges of a transaction graph, wherein each vertex of the transaction graph represents one of the customers or one of the merchants,…are stored as byte sequences on the edges; extracting, by a fraud detection …, aggregated features for a transaction based on a query submitted …, wherein the query…, wherein the aggregated features … card reference; and rejecting,…the transaction based on the extracted aggregated features.)
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, by a bitwise transaction graph …, a plurality of historical transactions, …, a transaction authorization time, a transaction risk score, and a set of real-time fraud risk attributes; converting, …, the historical transactions to a fixed length data structure…of bits; storing, …, the fixed length data structure onto edges of a transaction graph, wherein each vertex of the transaction graph represents one of the customers or one of the merchants,…are stored as byte sequences on the edges; extracting, by a fraud detection …, aggregated features for a transaction based on a query submitted …, wherein the query…, wherein the aggregated features … card reference; and rejecting,…the transaction based on the extracted aggregated features.”),
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 [0015]: 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.
However, In support of “Mental Process ”or “Method of organizing Human activity”: It is to be noted that “the claimed invention is similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mental processes: “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind ). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), 2106.05(a)(g)(h)”
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant argued in brief that, “Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly rendered obvious by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0065245 to Resheff et al. ("Resheff') in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0125470 to Chisholm et al. ("Chisholm"). Specifically, the Office Action asserts that Resheff discloses all elements of amended claim 1 except for "converting, by the bitwise transaction graph computer program, the historical transactions to a fixed length data structure." Office Action, page 7.
The arguments are persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sevenich et al (US 20200151216 A1) discloses Fast Detection of VETEX-Connectivity with Distance Constraint.
Sarkar et al (US 20130267171 A1) discloses Electronic Devices, Systems, and Methods for Data Exchange.
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
/ABHISHEK VYAS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691