DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant argued that the claims recite eligible subject matter. Applicant argued that their claims address a technical problem in machine learning. Examiner finds this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims concern curating an unlabeled training data set for use in machine learning. As Applicant’s specification points out, by using quadruplets data structures (i.e., the first-fourth subsets) the machine learning model may be trained faster and use fewer computing resources to do so. This amounts to an improvement in the machine learning model itself (as opposed to improving a financial/commercial process) and amounts to a practical application. In view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments, Examiner withdraws this rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17; these claims have the following grammatical errors:
The limitation “wherein network operations within the first, second, third, and fourth subset of the of the set of network operations are do not includes labels indicating whether the network operations are fraudulent or non-fraudulent” is grammatically incorrect. The additional “of the” appears to be an inadvertent error and needs to be deleted. Examiner believes Applicant means “wherein network operations… do not include labels indicating whether the network operations are fraudulent or non-fraudulent”. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “wherein the training is training is performed without using any labels indicating whether a network operation is fraudulent is grammatically incorrect. Examiner believes Applicant means “wherein the training is performed without using any labels indicating whether a network operation is fraudulent”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are objected to due to their dependence on independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant amended the claims to recite “network operation” as opposed to “transaction”. The specification only provides support for transactions. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “network operation” includes a transaction; thus there is technically 112(a) support for the amendment since the specification teaches the claims in the context of a financial transaction. However, in view of the specification, the only interpretation of “network operation” is a financial transaction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recites the limitation "the set of network operation" in the 2nd to last line of the first page; 25th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is an antecedent basis for the term “a set of network operation data”. Due to this antecedent basis issue, it is also unclear whether Applicant is actually referring to “a set of network operation data” or meant to establish a new limitation of “a set of network operation/operations”. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret this as “the set of network operation data”. If Applicant meant to establish a new limitation “a set of network operation(s)” please make sure that operation/operations is used consistently.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recites the limitation "the set of network operations" in the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, lines of the 2nd page of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is an antecedent basis for the term “a set of network operation data”. Due to this antecedent basis issue, it is also unclear whether Applicant is actually referring to “a set of network operation data” or meant to establish a new limitation of “a set of network operation/operations”. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret this as “the set of network operation data” Applicant meant to establish a new limitation “a set of network operation(s)” please make sure that operation/operations is used consistently.
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected to due to their dependence on independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights