DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application 18/732,522 filed on 06/03/2024.
In the instant application, claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended independent claims; Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This action is made non-final.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 06/03/2024 are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2024 and 11/18/2024 were filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jastrebski et al. (“Jastrebski,” US 2010/0169137), published on July 1, 2010 in view of Gieseke (US 2017/0178139), published on June 22, 2017 and further in view of Loganathan et al. (“Loganathan,” US 2017/0109837), published on April 20, 20217.
Regarding claim 1, Jastrebski teaches a method of visually identifying an entity associated with money laundering on a graphical user interface, the method comprising:
displaying, by one or more processors on the graphical user interface, a set of graphical nodes representative of a set of electronic entities (Jastrebski: ¶0041; graphs are disclosed with nodes and edges. In one embodiment, the nodes represent accounts and the edges represent associations that may include transactions or links between accounts. Nevertheless, other embodiments may include graphs with nodes that represent an entity other than an account and edges that represent associations between the entities other than transactions or links. ¶0042; an image of a graph is shown in real time based using a stream of real-time account data and transactions related to these account. The image of the graph may be considered as dynamic such that it may change based upon the changing nature of the account data stream), each graphical node of the set of graphical nodes having a visual attribute corresponding to an attribute of a respective electronic entity (Jastrebski: ¶0088-0090; nodes having circles with solid circumferences to indicate the nodes having identified with a status of “GOOD” and the nodes with solid black to represent nodes having identified with a status of “BAD”);
displaying, by one or more processors on the graphical user interface, a set of graphical components linking one or more of the set of graphical nodes, each graphical component of the set of graphical components corresponding to a respective transaction of a plurality of transactions associated with the set of electronic entities (Jastrebski: ¶0041; graphs are disclosed with nodes and edges. In one embodiment, the nodes represent accounts and the edges represent associations that may include transactions or links between accounts);
identifying, by one or more processors, at least one electronic entity that is associated with [money laundering] fraudulent activity in accordance with one or more final destinations of a number of transactions associated with the identified at least one electronic entity (Jastrebski: ¶0052; the account identifier module 624 may identify accounts in the aggregated transaction information that are suspected of fraudulent activity and generates account information from the aggregated transaction information for each of the suspected accounts. ¶0088-0090; nodes having circles with solid circumferences to indicate the nodes having identified with a status of “GOOD” and the nodes with solid black to represent nodes having identified with a status of “BAD”); and
[revising, by one or more processors, at least one visual attribute of at least one graphical node corresponding to the identified at least one electronic entity].
Jastrebski does not appear to teach: the fraudulent activity is the money laundering activity; and revising, by one or more processors, at least one visual attribute of at least one graphical node corresponding to the identified at least one electronic entity.
However Gieseke teaches analysis of transaction information using graphs. Gieseke also teaches: revising, by one or more processors, at least one visual attribute of at least one graphical node corresponding to the identified at least one electronic entity (Gieseke: ¶0019; once the determination is made that a particular node is known to be fraudulent or compromised, fraud status information associated with the particular node may be updated. ¶0020; the known fraud status information of nodes may then be used to determine whether other nodes of graph 100 may be fraudulent, and the fraud status information of such nodes may be updated accordingly. ¶0011; a known fraudulent or compromised node may be color-coded red and potentially fraudulent or compromised nodes may be color-coded yellow).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gieseke and Jastrebski in front of them to include the method of determine fraudulent nodes as disclosed by Gieseke with method to analyze data using a graph as taught by Jastrebski to allow for enhanced fraud detection capabilities using graph database and to analyze transaction information for fraudulent activity with greater accuracy (Gieseke: ¶0009 & 0012).
Jastrebski and Gieseke do not explicitly teach: the fraudulent activity is the money laundering activity.
However Loganathan teaches a method for analyzing transaction records to determine suspicious activity: wherein the fraudulent activity is the money laundering activity (Loganathan: ¶0068; business accounts and consumer accounts may be analyzed using different criteria for deciding whether account activity is suspicious or not. ¶0073; analysis of deposits as having been made within the predetermined time period and drawn from accounts owned by money service businesses. The timing and amounts of deposits and withdrawals are analyzed to identify accounts suspected of being used as funnel accounts for money laundering. ¶0084-0087; analyzing transaction data to identify one or more suspect entities).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Loganathan, Jastrebski and Gieseke in front of them to include the method of identifying money laundering activity as disclosed by Loganathan with method to analyze data using a graph as taught by Jastrebski to provide an improved and efficient method to uncover suspicious patterns in transactions that, taken individually, may appear to be legitimate (Loganathan: ¶0032).
Regarding claim 2, Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan teach the method of claim 1,
Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan also teach: wherein the one or more final destinations correspond to a known fraudulent electronic entity (Gieseke: ¶0019; once the determination is made that a particular node is known to be fraudulent or compromised, fraud status information associated with the particular node may be updated. ¶0020; the known fraud status information of nodes may then be used to determine whether other nodes of graph 100 may be fraudulent, and the fraud status information of such nodes may be updated accordingly. ¶0011; a known fraudulent or compromised node may be color-coded red and potentially fraudulent or compromised nodes may be color-coded yellow).
Regarding claim 3, Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan teach the method of claim 1,
Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan also teach: wherein at least one transaction comprises an exchange of currency between at least two electronic entities (Jastrebski: ¶0047 and Fig. 3; a wire transfer or other transfer of funds between accounts).
Regarding claim 5, Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan teach the method of claim 1,
Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan also teach: wherein a visual attribute of at least one graphical component associated with the identified at least one electronic entity identifies money-laundering activity (Jastrebski: ¶0036; accounts may be represented as nodes in the graph. The transactions or links between these nodes may be represented as edges connecting these nodes. These edges may be directed edges, or non-directed edges. These edges may be colored, highlighted , or otherwise distinguished to the user to inform the user as what type of relationship between nodes they represent. ¶0088-0090; nodes having circles with solid circumferences to indicate the nodes having identified with a status of “GOOD” and the nodes with solid black to represent nodes having identified with a status of “BAD”. Loganathan: ¶0068; business accounts and consumer accounts may be analyzed using different criteria for deciding whether account activity is suspicious or not. ¶0073; analysis of deposits as having been made within the predetermined time period and drawn from accounts owned by money service businesses. The timing and amounts of deposits and withdrawals are analyzed to identify accounts suspected of being used as funnel accounts for money laundering. ¶0084-0087; analyzing transaction data to identify one or more suspect entities).
Regarding claim 6, Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan teach the method of claim 1,
Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan also teach wherein the one or more final destinations are indirectly linked to the identified at least one electronic entity (Jastrebski: ¶0036; accounts may be represented as nodes in the graph. The transactions or links between these nodes may be represented as edges connecting these nodes. These edges may be directed edges, or non-directed edges. These edges may be colored, highlighted , or otherwise distinguished to the user to inform the user as what type of relationship between nodes they represent. ¶0088-0090; nodes having circles with solid circumferences to indicate the nodes having identified with a status of “GOOD” and the nodes with solid black to represent nodes having identified with a status of “BAD”).
Regarding claim 7, Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan teach the method of claim 1,
Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan also teach wherein the visual attribute corresponds to at least one of a color, pattern, thickness, or arrow direction of a line (Jastrebski: ¶0036; accounts may be represented as nodes in the graph. The transactions or links between these nodes may be represented as edges connecting these nodes. These edges may be directed edges, or non-directed edges. These edges may be colored, highlighted , or otherwise distinguished to the user to inform the user as what type of relationship between nodes they represent).
Regarding claims 8-10 and 12-14, the claims are directed to a system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable memory having instructions (Jastrebski: ¶0116-0117; computing system 1800 includes a machine-readable medium) executing the method as claimed in claims 1-3 and 5-7, respectfully; Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are similar scope to claims 1-3 and 5-7, respectfully and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 15-17 and 19-20, the claims are directed to a system comprising server in communication with the display device (Jastrebski: ¶0037 and Fig. 1; system 10 includes servers and display device) executing the method as claimed in claims 1-3 and 19-20, respectfully; Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are similar scope to claims 1-3 and 5-6, respectfully and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Charnock et al. (“Charnock,” US 2004/0153456), published on August 5, 2004.
Regarding claim 4, Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan teach the method of claim 1,
Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan further teach that edges connecting nodes may be colored, highlighted, or otherwise distinguished to the user to inform the user as what type of relationship between nodes they represent (Jastrebski: ¶0036).
Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan teach all the limitations above but do not explicitly teach: wherein at least one transaction of the plurality of transactions has a transaction type, and wherein the identified at least one electronic entity or at least one graphical component has a visual attribute that corresponds to the transaction type.
Charnock is relied upon to teach: wherein at least one transaction of the plurality of transactions has a transaction type, and wherein the identified at least one electronic entity or at least one graphical component has a visual attribute that corresponds to the transaction type (Charnock: ¶0174 and Fig. 10; links 540 connecting the elements of a financial transaction are color-coded according to transaction type following a color code specified in a legend 1025).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Charnock, Jastrebski, Gieseke and Loganathan in front of them to include the color-code of financial transactions based on transaction type as disclosed by Charnock with method to analyze data using a graph as taught by Jastrebski to provide the visualizations and user interface tools to facilitate the efficient and effective review and understanding of chains of events (Charnock: ¶0047).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is directed to a system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable memory having instructions (Jastrebski: ¶0116-0117; computing system 1800 includes a machine-readable medium) executing the method as claimed in claim 4; Claim 11 is similar scope to claim 4 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is directed to a system comprising server in communication with the display device (Jastrebski: ¶0037 and Fig. 1; system 10 includes servers and display device) executing the method as claimed in claim 4; Claim 18 is similar scope to claim 4 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tam T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-5029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, William L. Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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.
/TAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights