DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to an amendment filed on October 28, 2025. Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-9 are amended. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claim 1-3, 5-6 and 8-9 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection Analysis
101 Analysis
In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The analysis in line with current 101 guidelines. Even if the abstract idea is deemed to be novel, the abstract idea is no less abstract (see Flook- new mathematical formula was an abstract idea).
“ In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
2A, Prong One, Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention is directed to a method of organizing human activity that is commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because it entails evaluating data based on pre-defined rules for determining customer retention incentives. (App. Spec. para. 0002, 0011-0012).
Claim 1 which is illustrative of independent claims 5 and 8-9 recites:(Currently Amended) A model generation device comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
receive from a plurality of financial institution serves each operated by different financial institution, an input of financial transaction information including customer information anonymized in each of the plurality , the anonymized customer information obtained by converting the customer information based on data attributes in the customer information such that a specific customer in the customer information cannot be identified;
train machine-learning model for analyzing a financial transaction, using the financial transaction information received from the plurality of financial institution servers while keeping the customer information anonymized; and
output the model generated to the plurality of financial institution servers wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to; train as the machine learning model, a model that receives a content of a specific financial transition and outputs information indicating whether the financial transaction is fraudulent or not
Reviewing the accessed data and making a determination based on predefined criteria as recited in the claims are nothing more than gathering data and applying a set of instructions to the data.
2A- Prong Two
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements recite hardware components such as a processor (see App. Spec. para – 0022 - hardware configuration in which the model generation device 100 according to the first example embodiment is implemented by a computer device 500 including a processor. As illustrated in FIG. 2, the model generation device 100 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 501, memories such as a read only memory (ROM) 502 and a random access memory (RAM) 503, a storage device 505 that stores a program 504 and is a hard disk or the like, a communication interface (I/F) 508 for network connection, and an input/output interface 511 that receives and outputs data. In the first example embodiment, the financial transaction information received from each financial institution server 200 is input to the model generation device 100 via the communication I/F 508; see also paras. 0017-0020; Figs. 1-2), there does not appear to be any technology being improved.
They are described at a high level of generality where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components.
Unlike, McRO, the present claims contain improvements to the context, including the data anonymity of the transactions executed and not one of a technology or technological field.
Although the claims recite:
“receive from a plurality of financial institution serves each operated by different financial institution, an input of financial transaction information including customer information anonymized in each of the plurality , the anonymized customer information obtained by converting the customer information based on data attributes in the customer information such that a specific customer in the customer information cannot be identified;”
and a bare assertion of an improvement is made, the necessary detail on how the machine learning is executed has to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. However, absent is support (explanation) for how the identified improvement to machine learning technology is executed.
As recited it suggests a process similar to a feedback loop in which feedback is used to update the data fed the model. It suggests evaluating data albeit anonymized with information to identify patterns, absent is any support for the claims as recited for how it is an improvement to the computer or technical field beyond automating the evaluation process(see also App. Spec. paras. 0012, 0017-0020, 0037-0039 Figs. 1-3).
In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field of accessing the user’s data because the data processing performed merely uses a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The invention as claimed recites a generic computer component and the claim does not pass step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B; The next step is to identify any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The additional element is processor which is disclosed in the specification at a high degree of generality. Absent is any genuine issue of material fact that this component requires any specialized hardware or inventive computer component.
Likewise, the dependent claims 2-4 and 6-7 provide additonal details about the configuration of the device processor and how they applied to the evaluation process. For example, claims 2-3 which provide additional details about the data on the asset received by the processor to perform the evaluation and do not address the issues raised in the independent claims and therefore do not amount to a technical improvement or an integration of a practical application.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Independent claims 1, 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 including dependent claims 2-3 and 6-7. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-9 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1: Ineligible
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claim 13, the claim recites an abstract idea of agent registration.
The Independent claims are 1, 5 and 8-9. For this analysis and illustration purposes; claim 1 recites:
[Claim 1] (Currently Amended)
A model generation device comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
receive from a plurality of financial institution serves each operated by different financial institution, an input of financial transaction information including customer information anonymized in each of the plurality , the anonymized customer information obtained by converting the customer information based on data attributes in the customer information such that a specific customer in the customer information cannot be identified;
train machine-learning model for analyzing a financial transaction, using the financial transaction information received from the plurality of financial institution servers while keeping the customer information anonymized; and
output the model generated to the plurality of financial institution servers wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to; train as the machine learning model, a model that receives a content of a specific financial transition and outputs information indicating whether the financial transaction is fraudulent or not
Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention is directed to a method of organizing human activity that is commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because it entails evaluating data based on pre-defined rules for determining customer retention incentives. (App. Spec. para. 0002).
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic components (see Fig. 1; App Spec. paras. 0008-0022 - processor). This suggests generic components to receive and analyze information received against information in the database. The nature of the claim as a whole does not define a specific technological improvement but merely recites the steps necessary to perform the abstract idea in which the computers are invoked merely as a tool.
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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 - (e.g. computer – Figs. 1-3) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Further, the dependent claims 2-4 and 6-7, for example claims 2-4 describe the models and additional descriptive details about the criteria or rules applied to the evaluation of the request, however the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite generic components (e.g. see paras. 0020-0036, general-purpose computer) to evaluate the submitted data based on predefined conditions.
The dependent claims provide additional descriptions of the components/elements of the claimed invention in a manner that merely refines and further limits the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 5 and 8-9 and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of the independent claims.
None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims are patent-ineligible.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-14 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Munjal, USP Pub. No. 20210118003(System and Method For Using Data Points Collected from a Customer to Provide Customer Specific Offerings).
Randle, US 5787403 (Bank-Centric Service Platform Network and System).
Levitt, USP Pub. No. US 20200389450 (Systems and Methods for Holistic Digital Identity).
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 CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM 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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 571 272-3955. 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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019