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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
Objections
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for an initial lack of clarity. The initial sentence begins with “Some aspects of . . .” This suggests that other aspects are disclosed but not mentioned in the abstract. Please revise so as to be more clear. A brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole is required. The abstract should be clear and concise, and describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. More particularly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, 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. 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, 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. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally, MPEP § 2106; Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 1, the claimed invention, taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a process (i.e., a method), machine (e.g., apparatus, system, etc.), article of manufacture (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium) or composition of matter, and as such, is patent eligible.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards discerning financial fraud risk through analysis of consumer browsing behavior, including sequence of page views, etc. This is a long-standing commercial practice previously performed by humans (e.g., company cyber security personnel, law enforcement, etc.) manually and via generic computing. As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under § 2106, and Alice Corporation.
Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure—one or more computing devices, one or more computer storage media, a multi-task model, a MTCNN, etc.) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology. In particular, multi-task convolutional neural networks were generic computing technology at the time of filing. A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to do what’s been previously done, albeit less efficiently or slower. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims either further delineate the abstract idea, add further abstract idea(s), adds insignificant extra-solution activity, or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
It is noted that the specification provides that “[t]he terms ‘. . . computer storage medium’ do not comprise signals per se.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2025/0165125 to Maschmeyer et al.
With respect to Claims 1, 11, and 16, Masch teaches a computer system (FIGS. 1-5), a computer-implemented method (FIG. 6), and one or more computer storage media ([0019]) storing computer-usable instructions that, when used by one or more computing devices (FIG. 2, 5A), cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations, the operations comprising: accessing by at least one server of an online transaction platform ([0076], ecommerce platform), a sequence of page browsing signals ([0076], “browsing history” “viewing history”) corresponding to user interactions of a user with the platform ([0052];[0076];[0117]), each of the page browsing signals corresponding to a position in the sequence ([0060];[0061]); selecting, by said server(s), one or more portions of the page browsing signals; generating, by a server(s), one or more sequence embeddings, wherein each of the one or more embeddings is generated from a corresponding portion from the one or more portions of the page browsing signals and the corresponding position of each page browsing signal in the corresponding portion (see sequential, sequentially, sequence, subsequent throughout), embeddings (Abstract;[0007];[0010-18]; see embedding throughout); predicting, by a server(s), utilizing a multi-task model ([0045];[0051]) with multi-range kernels ([0051]), trained to detect fraudulent activity in online transactions ([0130]), a fraud risk for each of the one or more sequence embeddings ([0131];[0144]) and causing, by at least one server from the one or more servers, an action to be performed on the online transaction platform based on the fraud risk for at least one of the one or more sequence embeddings, the action comprising at least one of blocking a transaction involving the user, freezing an account of the user, or closing the account of the user ([0144])..
With respect to Claims 2, 12, and 17, Masch teaches identifying a purchase signal corresponding to the user, the purchase signal indicating the buyer has attempted to purchase an item. ([0074])
With respect to Claims 3, 13, and 18, Masch teaches upon identifying the purchase signal, requesting the sequence of page browsing signals ([0074];[0076]).
With respect to Claims 4, 14, and 19, Masch teaches wherein the fraud risk for the at least one of the one or more sequence embedding indicates the user is attempting transaction fraud, for a current transaction, and the action comprises preventing a completion of the current transaction in real-time. ([0144])
With respect to Claims 5, 15, and 20, Masch teaches wherein the multi-task model is a convolutional neural network ([0044]) trained to detect one or more types of fraud risk in parallel utilizing the multi-range kernels ([0051]).
With respect to Claim 6, Masch teaches wherein the page browsing signals comprise page identification, item identification, and view time. ([0076])
With respect to Claim 7, Masch teaches wherein the multi-task model is a one-layer convolutional neural network architecture. ([0043])
With respect to Claim 8, Masch teaches wherein the multi-task model is trained with random label weights. ([0045])
With respect to Claim 9, Masch teaches wherein the multi-task model is trained for each of one or more types of transaction fraud in parallel (see spec at ¶ [0013]). [0045];[0075];[0130]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 10 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Maschmeyer, in view of US 2022/0351216 to Kramme et al.
With respect to Claim 10, Masch fails to expressly teach, but Kramme teaches wherein the fraud risk for the at least one embeddings is indicative of an account takeover, stolen financial information, or high risk buying. ([0003];[0017], e.g., account takeover) Kramme discusses the cost and economic loss associated with financial fraud. ([0003]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Masch to include prediction of one of these types of fraud in order to reduce the costs associated with financial fraud.
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 10/27/2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where objections/rejections are maintained. The objection to the abstract is maintained, because it begins with “some aspects” which suggest that other aspects of the disclosure are being excluded. The § 112 rejection has been withdrawn, in light of the instant amendment.
As per § 101, the independent claims are substantially amended, but fail to recite a practical application or significantly more. Merely employing generic computing technology in a conventional manner to reap its benefits in a particular context is not patent eligible. An MTCNN model having multi-range kernels, and real-time fraud risk detection of online user behavior, were known in the art at the time of filing. (see prior art references of record). Moreover, post detection action, such as denying the transaction or freezing an account, was also well known, routine, and conventional. (see prior art references of record) Finally, Applicant’s arguments as to a real-time technical solution is not persuasive, as other real-time similar solutions were known in the art at the time. (see prior art references of record; a search of the string, “online SAME behavior same brows$9 AND detect$9 same fraud SAME real-time,” yielded over 100 results). Applicant’s remarks contain arguments not found in the claims (e.g., “short and long term user behavior patterns in parallel,” etc.) Upon traversal, Applicant is asked to identify which limitations recite an innovative concept. No single claim sufficient detail to effect a practical application or significantly more; and it is noted that a combination claim has not been presented.
As per the prior art rejections, Maschmeyer teaches each and every limitation recited in the claims in its disclosure of an e-commerce platform and a server (e.g., [0072]) of such a platform. At [0076] for example, consideration of short and long term user behavior is taught. The phrases “sequence embedding” and “position of user browsing signals” are taught by consideration of “viewing history” in Maschmeyer; if this is inaccurate, please explain. Maschmeyer teaches multi-tasks being considered at [0076] (viewing history, browser history, etc.) A multi-task multi-kernel MTCNN was a part of the state of the art at the time of filing; Maschmeyer teaches the use of deep learning ([0044-45]). Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim, and also that the entirety of a prior art reference is to be applied to the respective claim(s), such that the pinpoint citations above are exemplary and provided for Applicant’s benefit; other locations within the applied reference(s) may further support the rejection. MPEP 2141.02(VI).
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 WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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 on 5712723955. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696