DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on February 19, 2026, for the application with serial number 18/509,249.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are amended. Note that Claim 9 is labeled as amended, but Claim 9 is not marked up. Therefore, Claim 9 will be treated as previously presented.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the present claims are subject matter eligible due to similarities with Example 39 from the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. See Remarks p. 11. Again, in response, the Examiner points out that the analysis provided for those claims concludes that no abstract idea is recited. See chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/101-examples-37-42.pdf. In contrast, the present claims recite steps for using variables to create a model; and modifying the model based on a calculated reconstruction error for the model. The steps are mathematical concepts and/or steps for managing personal behavior that are ineligible abstract ideas. Contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, the method is mathematical. Reconstruction error is a mathematical concept. Clustering the calculated error, as recited in independent claim 1, is also done mathematically. For example, k-means clustering relies on error calculated as a distance from a mean. The step of modifying a model rule based on the error amounts to a training step that is also mathematical or personal behavior.
The Applicant further compares the present claims to claims from Example 48. See Remarks p. 11. In response, the Examiner points out that the claims from Example 48 involve speech separation. The present claims, in contrast, are merely directed to a method for using variables to define differences in data patterns. The claims do not recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. Minimizing error and detecting shifts in error, as recited in the present claims, is purely mathematical. The Examiner additionally notes that the claims could be considered a method of organizing human behavior; because the steps could be performed mentally or on paper by a human being.
The Applicant additionally submits that the present claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem of monitoring model suitability. See Remarks p. 13. In response, the Examiner submits that determining model suitability based on error, as recited in the present claims, is a mathematical process. As such, the claims are directed to an ineligible abstract idea. The use of a computer to perform repetitive calculations in parallel is understood. The recited cluster of servers amount to generic computer hardware that do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Making it easier to understand data is not a practical application. “Understanding data” is an abstract idea.
The Applicant further contends that the present claims recite a process that improves computer capabilities. See Remarks p. 15. Here, the Applicant appears to be admitting that the claims involve mathematical algorithms, which are mathematical relationships. Again, the Examiner reiterates that the use of servers and parallel processing is understood. The generic computer components do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and maintained.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Although claims(s) 1, 2, 5-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to using variables to define differences in data patterns (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “encoding . . . . data inputs to one or more latent variables in at least one hidden layer of a neural network . . . the one or more latent variables defining one or more first data patterns being different from one or more second data patterns of the stored model”), and modifying a model based on model error (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “monitoring each behavioral cluster to detect a shift in the characteristics associated with the total reconstruction error; and modifying . . . at least one model parameter or processing rule associated with the stored model in response to the monitored shift”); both abstract ideas. Mathematical relationships and certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including formulas, equations and calculations; and managing personal behavior, relationships, and interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “receiving . . . historical transaction data input;” “receiving . . . historical customer transaction profile data input;” “comparing the historical transaction profile data and the historical transaction data input with data in a stored model;” “sorting extracted original data;” “encoding data inputs to one or more latent variables;” “calculating . . . a first reconstruction error;” “calculating . . . a second reconstruction error;” “calculating . . . a total reconstruction error;” “modifying . . . at least one model parameter or processing rule;” “identifying . . . one or more outliers of the total reconstruction error;” “clustering the one or more outliers;” “applying a rule-based treatment to each outlier;” “monitoring each behavioral cluster;” and “modifying . . . at least one model parameter or processing rule . . . in response to [a] monitored shift.” The steps are all steps describing numerical input and mathematical operations for minimizing an error calculation; and modifying a model based on model error, respectively that quantifies differences in consumer transaction behavior that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of using variables to define differences in data patterns; and modifying a model using the variables based on model error. The dependent claims further recite steps for performing a calculation that are part of the abstract idea of using variables to define differences in data patterns. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes modeling a difference between likely behavior and observed behavior using quantitative data to identify evidence of fraud; and training the model based on outpour error.
Under step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (a computer readable medium, processors, and a cluster of servers in independent claim 1; a computer implemented method and cluster of servers in independent claim 8; and a computing system, processor, computer-readable medium, and cluster of servers in independent claim 14). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do recite the use of an auto-encoder neural network, but the abstract idea of using variables to define differences in data patterns is generally linked to an autoencoder neural network for implementation. Therefore, the auto-encoder neural network merely amounts to a technological environment that does not provide a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(h). The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). The claims require no more than a generic computer (a computer readable medium and processors in independent claim 1; a computer implemented method in independent claim 8; and a computing system with a process and computer-readable medium in independent claim 14) to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights