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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 03/23/2026 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, 12, 16, 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:
training,
obtaining,
obtaining
selecting,particular peer group, wherein
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 and store data (b, c, d), select and process and train model with data (a, e, f), computing data (g), and generating data (h). 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 and fundamental economic practice known in the know financial business.
The limitations a, e, f recites concepts that under the broadest reason of interpretation falls within the grouping of mathematical concepts and mental process. The limitations a, e, f requires mathematical concepts and mental process for train and use the one or more transactions models, the same applies to the predictors. In addition, Supervise learning Technique is known to be mathematical concepts.
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”, “supervise learning”;
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:”;
The claimed additional elements that perform limitations (b-d, h (output)) are claimed at a high level and are considered merely data gathering, and thus are considered nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional elements that perform limitations (a, e, f) recite limitations that iteratively train one or more transaction models using supervised learning technique and data with positive and negative cases without the recitation of an improvement of a particular field of use or a technological environment, and selecting the one or more transaction models and applying / processing the transaction data using the one or more models are used as a tool, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer; the additional elements that perform limitation (g and h) is claimed at a high level of generality and is directed to compute a prioritization indication and representation generation using data, and thus amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. 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 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding to 35 U.S.C 101 rejection have been considered; the rejection is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed invention is eligible, see Remarks pages 16-17. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because the claimed invention uses a processor (Intellectual Ventures I) to iteratively train one or more transaction models using an existent supervised learning technique until achieves a desired level of accuracy, and a manual process by a user provided through feedback before deployed, see para. 61-60, does not constitute a technical improvement as argued by applicant. Further, the prediction algorithms is not considered a technical improvement, merely use a threshold to improve accuracy by comparing data that are similar -- positive or negative data, is not considered a technical improvement, instead it is considered nothing more than data comparison. Regarding the Ex Parte Desjardins decision, Examiner does not see where the Ex Parte Desjardins solution equates the current claimed invention - Ex Parte Desjardins solution “training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered”.
For at least those reason the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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
Prosecution Insights