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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 10 July 2026.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 13 and 15 are amended.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17 and 19-20 are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16 and 18 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner appreciates clarification of the distance metric recited. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws the claim interpretation.
Claim Objections
The claims have been amended to address the objection(s)/rejection(s) presented in the prior Office Action. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws the corresponding objection(s)/rejection(s).
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the newly amended language are not merely generic “apply it on a computer” instructions and define a particular machine-implemented RTP-network workflow that uses a stored, adaptive feature-profile data structure to control in-flight transaction processing by generating and transmitting network transaction-processing messages/signals before completion of the current transaction. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula such as the Arrhenius equation). See, e.g., Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971 (claims directed to "narrow laws that may have limited applications" held ineligible); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197 (claims that did not "wholly preempt the mathematical formula" held ineligible).” See MPEP 2106.04(I). Narrowing the judicial exception to the particular use case or context applicant describes does not negate the fact that the claim(s) recites and/or describes a judicial exception. The claim(s) recites and/or describes a judicial exception. The remaining additional elements are further elaborated upon in the instant 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that the technical improvement is not that the alleged business concept of “Mitigating Risk” is performed more accurately or more quickly and then cites the specification. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using applicant’s own citation Examiner emphasizes the following points.
“The Specification explains that existing automatic profiling algorithms may not be directly applicable to transaction data because different transaction features have uneven strength or contribution for different anomalies. The Specification further explains that existing auto-profiling systems cannot quickly auto-profile anomalies based on unlabeled, large-scale streaming data, and identifies a need for a mechanism that can efficiently and automatically profile anomalies received in streaming data. The amended claim addresses that technical problem with a specific RTP/RTAP architecture and sequence of operations.” (Remarks dated 10 July 2026 at page 17)
Noting the emphasized language, it is abundantly clear that despite applicant asserting that the claims’ improvement is not that the alleged business concept of “Mitigating Risk” is performed more accurately or more quickly, applicant appears to admit (see emphasized language) that the claims are concerned with direct applicability and efficiency (i.e. more accurate analysis) and quickly auto-profiling and automation (i.e. more quick analysis). Therefore, it is clear that the claims are concerned with improvement of the noted abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention satisfies the standard of MPEP §2106.04(d) and then recites many of the amended limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP clarifies how additional elements can impose meaningful limits on a recited judicial exception:
“Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II))
Drawing attention to the emphasized section, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. In the current case, regardless of whether or not applicant’s invention improves the recited judicial exception, improving a method, algorithm, or process of a judicial exception absent of any technological modification, would be an improvement to the judicial exception (e.g. via the improvement in the efficiency of the judicial exception), but does not improve computers or technology.
Applicant argues that the ordered combination imposes meaningful limits on any alleged risk-mitigation concept and does not preempt all ways of identifying, analyzing, or mitigating risky transactions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 ("We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption"). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that "patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity." Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, the attempt to limit the breadth of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9855, 17-18 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015).
Applicant argues that their claims are eligible for reasons similar to those in McRO. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This court case is directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer or to a technology or technical field. In McRO, improvements to the then done by hand animation technology whereby each person performed hand drawn animation differently into a consistent implementation by rules on a computer. Applicant’s invention would be performed the same in person as on a computer and thus is mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer. The case of McRO does not apply to the applicant’s claims.
Applicant argues that their claims are eligible for reasons similar to those given in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. (hereinafter SRI). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In SRI, the problem being solved was identified as follows:
“While the interconnectivity of computer networks facilitates access for authorized users, it also increases a network's susceptibility to attacks from hackers, malware, and other security threats. Some of these security threats can only be detected with information from multiple sources. For instance, a hacker may try logging in to several computers or monitors in a network. The number of login attempts for each computer may be below the threshold to trigger an alert, making it difficult to detect such an attack by looking at only a single monitor location in the network.”
The focus of claims were further found to be the following:
“The "focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities"—that is, providing a network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically detect large-scale attacks”. The specification bolstered the court’s conclusion that the claims were directed to a technological solution to a technical problem. “The specification explains that, while computer networks "offer users ease and efficiency in exchanging information," '615 patent col. 1 ll.28-29, "the very interoperability and sophisticated integration of technology that make networks such valuable assets also make them vulnerable to attack, and make dependence on networks a potential liability." Id. at col. 1 ll. 36-39. The specification further teaches that, in conventional networks, seemingly localized triggering events can have globally disastrous effects on widely distributed systems—like the 1980 ARPAnet collapse and the1990 AT&T collapse. See id. at col. 1 ll. 43-47. The specification explains that the claimed invention is directed to solving these weaknesses in conventional networks and provides "a framework for the recognition of more global threats to interdomain connectivity, including coordinated attempts to infiltrate or destroy connectivity across an entire network enterprise."
Unlike in SRI, applicant’s specification is not focused on an improvement in computer capabilities, but rather is focused on implementation of a business practice (i.e. fraud detection, See at least paragraph [0003] of the specification) using generic computer components. The case of SRI is not analogous to the instant application.
Applicant argues that their claims are eligible for reasons similar to those given in Example 47. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Example 47 references the case of SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. (hereinafter SRI). Therefore for the sake of compact prosecution Examiner will address both together. In SRI, the problem being solved was identified as follows:
“While the interconnectivity of computer networks facilitates access for authorized users, it also increases a network's susceptibility to attacks from hackers, malware, and other security threats. Some of these security threats can only be detected with information from multiple sources. For instance, a hacker may try logging in to several computers or monitors in a network. The number of login attempts for each computer may be below the threshold to trigger an alert, making it difficult to detect such an attack by looking at only a single monitor location in the network.”
The focus of claims were further found to be the following:
“The "focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities"—that is, providing a network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically detect large-scale attacks”. The specification bolstered the court’s conclusion that the claims were directed to a technological solution to a technical problem. “The specification explains that, while computer networks "offer users ease and efficiency in exchanging information," '615 patent col. 1 ll.28-29, "the very interoperability and sophisticated integration of technology that make networks such valuable assets also make them vulnerable to attack, and make dependence on networks a potential liability." Id. at col. 1 ll. 36-39. The specification further teaches that, in conventional networks, seemingly localized triggering events can have globally disastrous effects on widely distributed systems—like the 1980 ARPAnet collapse and the1990 AT&T collapse. See id. at col. 1 ll. 43-47. The specification explains that the claimed invention is directed to solving these weaknesses in conventional networks and provides "a framework for the recognition of more global threats to interdomain connectivity, including coordinated attempts to infiltrate or destroy connectivity across an entire network enterprise."
Similarly, in Example 47 the problem being solved was identified in the following:
“The consideration of whether the claim as a whole includes an improvement to a computer or to a technological field requires an evaluation of the specification and the claim to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). According to the background section, existing systems use various detection techniques for detecting potentially malicious network packets and can alert a network administrator to potential problems. The disclosed system detects network intrusions and takes real-time remedial actions, including dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic from suspicious source addresses. The background section further explains that the disclosed system enhances security by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusions.
The claimed invention reflects this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection. Steps (d)-(f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step (d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f). These steps reflect the improvement 13 described in the background. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.”
Unlike in SRI and Example 47, applicant’s specification is not focused on an improvement in computer capabilities, but rather is focused on implementation of a business practice (i.e. fraud detection, See at least paragraphs [0003] of the specification) using generic computer components. The case of SRI and Example 47 are not analogous to the instant application.
Applicant argues that the receipt of raw transaction data and transaction-processing notification are not insignificant extra-solution activity. Examiner notes that these steps were never asserted to be insignificant extra-solution activity. As such any and all arguments related to such assertions are moot.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not merely say to use clustering in the field of real-time payments and as such is not merely linking the alleged exception to a technological environment. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this conclusion. “The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Id. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. Instead, the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. Further, the Supreme Court found that this limitation did not amount to an inventive concept. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would "exalt[] form over substance", because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula. 437 U.S. at 590, 198 USPQ at 197.” See MPEP 2106.05(h). The usage of unsupervised clustering does not alter or affect how the process steps of auto-profiling anomalies are performed. The usage of unsupervised clustering does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the Office Action overlooks the ordered combination of technical limitations and then cites the amended language. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for additional elements to provide more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional, the additional elements must in combination provide additional functionality that is not present when considering the elements individually. Examiner notes that the additional elements do not in combination provide for additional functionality.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the ordered combination of amended limitations are eligible under Step 2B and then recites the amended language arguing that the Office Action does not establish required factual support. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d)” (See MPEP 2106.05(II)).
In both the prior and instant Office Action, the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two are equally applied in Step 2B which further re-evaluates additional elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity and evaluates these elements as per MPEP §2106.05(d) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Said elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (if any) are evaluated as well-understood, routine, and conventional as per the evidentiary requirements detailed in MPEP §2106.07(a)(III) utilizing option (B) via citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Thus, there are no further elements to evaluate under Step 2B. Most considerations relating to any additional elements were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two and thus do not require further re-evaluation in Step 2B.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
The claims have been amended to address the rejection(s) presented in the prior Office Action by incorporating the indicated allowable elements from the prior Office Action. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws the corresponding objection(s)/rejection(s).
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a method, system, and computer program product including a non-transitory computer readable medium for auto-profiling anomalies. These are a process, machine, and article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1, 8, and 15:
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15:
“generating,…, using an anomaly detection system comprising a…payments (RTP) system, during processing of a plurality of transactions received as streaming transaction data in an RTP network, a plurality of anomaly transactions identified as anomalies within the plurality of transactions;”
“receiving,… , the plurality of anomaly transactions identified as anomalies by the anomaly detection system during the processing of the plurality of transactions in the RTP network;”
“selecting,…, a subset of anomaly transactions of the plurality of anomaly transactions, wherein the subset of anomaly transactions is associated with a plurality of features comprising transaction parameters or engineered features generated from transaction parameters of anomaly transactions in the subset of anomaly transactions;”
“generating,…, based on the plurality of features associated with the subset of anomaly transactions and a distribution of the plurality of features associated with the subset of anomaly transactions, a plurality of weights associated with the plurality of features associated with the subset of anomaly transactions, wherein generating the plurality of weights comprises:”
“determining, for each feature category i of K feature categories of the plurality of features, a probability distribution p(xi) of features in the subset of anomaly transactions;”
“ordering the K feature categories according to the probability distribution p(xi), wherein p(x1)>p(x2)>…>p(xk);
“determining, for a selected number N of the K feature categories, where N ≤ K, a cumulative sum qn(X) of the probability distribution p(xi);”
“generating, for a feature xi, a weight s(x) of the plurality of weights as a normalized weighted combination of cumulative sums q(x), wherein the cumulative sums q(x) are weighted with exponentially decreasing weights as N increases, such that lower-relevance features are assigned lower weights for subsequent segmenting of the subset of anomaly transactions;”
“segmenting,…,…, based on the plurality of features associated with the subset of anomaly transactions and the plurality of weights associated with the plurality of features associated with the subset of anomaly transactions, the subset of anomaly transactions into a plurality of segments of anomaly transactions;”
“labeling,…, a subset of segments of the plurality of segments with a feature profile including a feature from each segment of the subset of segments associated with a highest weight of the plurality of weights of the plurality of features of the anomaly transactions in that segment.”
“receiving, … using the RTP system, raw transaction data associated with a current transaction currently being processed in the RTP network;”
“generating, …using the RTP system, a current anomaly transaction identified as a current anomaly based on feature engineering and transaction risk scoring performed on the raw transaction data associated with the current transaction and providing the current transaction as a transaction to be actively monitored;”
“…labeling,… using the RTAP system, the current anomaly transaction by comparing one or more features associated with the current anomaly transaction to the stored feature profile, wherein the current anomaly transaction is labeled with the stored feature profile and assigned to a segment of the anomaly community represented by the stored feature profile in response to a threshold number of the one or more features associated with the current anomaly transaction satisfying a threshold number of features in the stored feature profile;”
“in response to the automatic labeling of the current anomaly transaction and based on whether the current anomaly transaction is assigned to the anomaly community, generating a transaction-processing notification comprising one or more messages, data packets, or signals indicating whether the current anomaly transaction is an actual anomaly, and before the current transaction is authorized, …transmitting,…using the RTAP system, via a communication path of the RTP network, the transaction-processing notification to a transaction service provider system or an issuer system in the RTP network to cause, in response to the transaction- processing notification, the transaction service provider system or the issuer system to (i) decline or suspend processing of the current anomaly transaction in the RTP network when the transaction-processing notification indicates that the current anomaly transaction is an actual anomaly, or (ii) authorize or continue processing of the current anomaly transaction in the RTP network when the transaction-processing notification indicates that the current anomaly transaction is not an actual anomaly”
“updating,… using the RTAP system, based on the current anomaly transaction, the stored feature profile for the anomaly community by …relabeling the anomaly community with an updated feature profile including a feature from the segment in which the current anomaly transaction is included… before processing a next current anomaly transaction in the RTP network.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor”, or “A computer program product including a non-transitory computer readable medium including program instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Mitigating Risk. Mitigating Risk is described when analyzing and classifying an anomalous transaction. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claim 1:
“…with at least one processor…”
“…real-time…”
“…with the least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
Claim 8:
“at least one processor configured to:”
Claim 15:
“A computer program product including a non-transitory computer-readable medium including program instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:”
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15:
“storing, in one or more data structures in memory for access by a real-time auto-profiling (RTAP) system, the feature profile as a label for an anomaly community;”
“…using an unsupervised clustering algorithm…”
“automatically…”
“…automatically… with the at least one processor…”
“…automatically…”
“…and storing the updated feature profile in the one or more data structures for access by the RTAP system,…”
The computer components (processor, automation, one or more data structures in memory, real-time processing, and non-transitory computer-readable medium) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor, generic computer automation, generic memory data structures, generic real-time processing and generic storage.) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The storing step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generally storing data) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of an unsupervised clustering algorithm is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
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.
The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do 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 identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claim 1:
“…with at least one processor…”
“…real-time…”
“…with the least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…using an unsupervised clustering algorithm…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
“…with the at least one processor…”
Claim 8:
“at least one processor configured to:”
Claim 15:
“A computer program product including a non-transitory computer-readable medium including program instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:”
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15:
“storing, in one or more data structures in memory for access by a real-time auto-profiling (RTAP) system, the feature profile as a label for an anomaly community;”
“automatically…”
“…automatically… with the at least one processor…”
“…automatically…”
“…and storing the updated feature profile in the one or more data structures for access by the RTAP system,…”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for storing various data) Storing and retrieving information in memory, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2, 6, 9, 13, and 17 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 further recite the clustering algorithm including a modular-transform based clustering algorithm. The use of a modular-transform based clustering algorithm is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
The claims do 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 identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18:
“…wherein the unsupervised clustering algorithm includes a modular-transform based clustering algorithm.”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. There are no additional elements that are classified as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes a search was performed but did not result in a prior art rejection for the instant set of claims. These claims still have an outstanding 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zizzamia et al. (US 2014/0058763 A1) as the closest prior art of reference discloses that the subset of sampled claims/transactions are segmented and classified (i.e. labeled) and sorted in profiles based on descending orders (i.e. highest first) of weighted anomaly indicators/variables (i.e. features), wherein different profilers are generated using the weighted anomaly indicators/variables such that the highest/top weighted variables/indicators are associated with a corresponding profile.
Wolters (“Technical Report: Sample Size for Estimating Multinomial Populations”) discloses determining a sample size N based on interval width d (i.e. true distance d) at a significance level α by using The Thompson Method.
Yang et al. (US 2007/0106580 A1) discloses real-time processing of transactions for fraud detection so that a system may deny a transaction immediately upon determining that the transaction is likely fraudulent (i.e. currently being processed).
Priess et al. (US 2015/0026027 A1) discloses estimation of an unknown multinomial probability distribution and exponential decay time model.
Gullikson et al. (WO 2023/064397 A1) discloses clustering techniques to label transaction data.
Fariha et al. (“Advanced fraud detection using machine learning models: enhancing financial transaction security”) discloses segmentation of transaction landscapes using K-means clustering.
Pontes Jesus (EP 4141693 A1) discloses usage of the Wasserstein metric and other similarity metrics for testing distributions.
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 ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights