DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 07/01/2025 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 1-4, 6-21 have NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 12-19, 21 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-21 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because 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 and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1, 12, 16, 21 fall(s) in two of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Yes
Claims 1, 12, 16, 21 limitations:
obtaining,
obtaining
particular peer group, wherein the one or more transactions models is trained to: (i) apply the particular set of evidence factors and (ii) identify anomalous transaction patterns representing potentially anomalous activity, wherein the particular set of evidence factors: a) are determined from transaction patterns identified in the transaction data of the particular peer group, and wherein b) the particular peer group is associated with the common set of attributes and the one or more common activities;
processing,
computing,
generating,
The limitations of claims 1, 12, 16, 21 recite concepts of detecting transaction anomalous activities, which fall into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claim language recites: obtain data and store data – see step (a)(b)(c), model trained to (i) apply the particular set of evidence factors and (ii) identify anomalous transaction patterns representing potentially anomalous – see step (d) , processing transaction data for the multiple entities to identify potentially anomalous activity within the transaction data for the multiple entities – see step (e), computing a prioritization indicator based on the processing the particular set of evidence factors the transaction data for the multiple entities – see step (f), and generating a representation of one or more of the multiple entities associated with the potentially anomalous activity for output -- see step (g). These limitations, as drafted, are a process that under the broadest reason of interpretation falls within the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and concepts considered commercial practice known in the know financial business.
Thus, claims 1-4, 6-21 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
Besides the abstract idea, claims 1, 12, 16, 21 recite the additional element:
Claims 1, 12, 16, 21: “a server system”, “a graphical user interface of a user device in communication with the server system”; “selecting, by the server system, one or more transaction models”, “using the one or more transaction models”, “one or more computers having a processor and memory”;
Claim 12: “A system comprising: one or more computers; and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising”;
Claim 16 : “A non-transitory computer-readable storage device encoded with computer program instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:”;
Examiner does not believe the current claimed invention integrates the recited judicial exception identified under Step 2A Prong One into a practical application because:
The claims recite the additional elements perform limitations (a)(b)(c) obtain data and storing data, and the additional element is recited at a high level of generality, and is use as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving and storing data.
The additional elements that perform limitations (d) reciting the selection one or more transaction models trained to apply data - particular set of evidence factors, and identify anomalous transaction patterns representing potentially anomalous activity without the recitations of details of the models and how it is trained, and the limitation of step (d) can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or a technological environment.
The additional elements that perform limitations steps (e), (f), and (h), which processing transaction data, computing a prioritization indicator based on the processing the particular set of evidence factors the transaction data for the multiple entities, and generating a representation of one or more of the multiple entities associated with the potentially anomalous activity for output are considered nothing more than generally claim the processing of data and indication claimed a t a high level of generality, and the representation being generated with the details of representation, and how it is generated, and therefore the limitation of step (e), (f), and (h), can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or a technological environment.
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, and the claims 1, 12, 16, 21 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-4, 6-21 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
The additional elements listed above on Step 2A (Prong 2) when considered both individually and in combination amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components; As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. Therefore, the same analysis applies here in Step 2B, and the computer components are constructed as generic computer components that performs well-understood, routine, conventional activities]’ previously known in the industry.
In addition, the court found that using a machine on its ordinary capacity, in other words, invoking a machine merely as a tool to perform an existing process do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because it is simply applying the abstract idea in a computer such as the abstracted idea listed above applied in the generic computer component(s) also listed above.
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), computer functions recognized by the court as well-understood, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”;
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(6), the additional elements recognized by the courts that did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea: in OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the court determined that the additional steps to "test prices and collect data based on the customer reactions" did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, because the steps were well-understood, routine, conventional data-gathering activities. 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and thus, no indication that the claims include inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-15, 17-20 do not add “significantly more” to the eligibility of claims 1, 12, 16, 21 and recite a more complex abstraction executed on a generic computer using well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Even when considered as an ordered combination, these dependent claims do not add significantly more than when considered individually.
Claims 1-4, 6-21 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-21 allowed over the prior art. Examiner substantially agrees with applicant arguments, specifically page 17, first paragraph. Therefore, the claims are allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/01/2025 have been fully considered. but they are persuasive and/or are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
The terminal disclaimer was reviewed on the After Final communication filed on 07/10/20225. Therefore, The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding to 35 U.S.C 103 rejection have been considered; and the rejection is withdrawn in view of an updated search and applicant arguments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding to 35 U.S.C 101 rejection have been considered; the rejection is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that at least the generating a representation limitation is significantly more, and equates to Example 23, items 7-11 of the Subject matter Eligibility Examples (2015), see Remarks page 14-16, last paragraph. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner does not see the generation of the representation for output on a graphic user interface as similar to Exempla 23. To the contrary, the claimed invention generates a representation for output on a graphical user interface without reciting an improvement of functioning of the representation being displayed as the one found on Claim 4 of the Exempla 23. Therefore, the rejection under the 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-5PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627