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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/4/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and claims 1, 2, 8, and 15 have been amended.
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: The claims 1-7 are a computer readable medium, claims 8-14 are a method and claims 15-20 are a system. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1, 8 and 15, taking claim 1 as a representative claim) recite:
One or more computer storage media storing computer-usable instructions that, when used by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receivingan online transaction platform and one or more risk signatures;
persisting, in a time series database, the event data for each of the plurality of checkpoint as an immutable record for the user;
converting, without human intervention, a search query into graph traversal logic, wherein the search query is in a domain-specific language and defines a combination of risk signatures, within a look back time window, indicative of fraud;
at a current checkpoint in a current user workflow of the user, retrieving, from the time series database, a subset of the event data for each of the plurality of checkpoint within the look back time window;
generating, in memory, a knowledge graph using the subset of the event data for each of the plurality of checkpoint, wherein the knowledge graph comprises activities as vertices and qualifiers for activities as adjacency relations between activities;
traversing the knowledge graph utilizing the graph traversal logic, by testing adjacency relations to identify the combination of risk signatures; and
based on the traversing, dynamically modifying the current user workflow to prevent fraudulent activity.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for preventing fraud in online transactions (see [0002 of the instant specification) through the analysis of user activities being converted into a knowledge graph, searching for fraudulent activities, and modifying workflow based on the findings. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under sales activities. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
One or more non-transitory computer storage media storing computer-usable instructions that, when used by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations, the operations comprising: (claim 1)
A computer-implemented method comprising: (claim 8)
A computer system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer storage medium storing computer-usable instructions that, when used by the one or more processors, causes the computer system to perform operations comprising: (claim 15)
an online transaction platform and one or more risk signatures;
persisting, in a time series database, the event data;
retrieving, from the time series database, a subset of the event data;
generating, in memory, a knowledge graph
The additional elements of emphasized above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole 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: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 8, and 15 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 8, and 15 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites wherein dynamically modifying comprises at least one of freezing an account associated with the fraud, blocking a transaction or activity, or requiring verification of at least one of user, location, address, or device. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites further comprising, receiving, at a user interface, a search query for signatures of risk indicators, wherein the signatures of risk indicators comprise a combination of signatures. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and recited the additional element of a user interface. However, the interface is recited at a high level of generality and does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites further comprising, aggregating a geolocation of a user device corresponding to the user workflow, a device type of the user device, and browser or application information corresponding to the user workflow. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites further comprising, enabling, at a user interface, a business user to dynamically specify the checkpoint in the user workflow. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and recited the additional element of a user interface. However, the interface is recited at a high level of generality and does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites further comprising, enabling, at a user interface, a business user to dynamically search for the combination of signatures leading up to the checkpoint in the user workflow. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and recited the additional element of a user interface. However, the interface is recited at a high level of generality and does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites wherein the checkpoint comprises: user registration, user sign in, change in shipping address, change in email address, change in user device, or checkout. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 9-14 and 16-20 recite parallel claim language and therefore are also rejected for the reasons set forth above. For these reasons claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art, however the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101, as set forth above. All dependent claims are also free of prior art by virtue of dependency, but remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Taking amended claim 1 as a representative claim, the claims as amended are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 now recites the additional claimed features of
converting, without human intervention, a search query into graph traversal logic, wherein the search query is in a domain-specific language and defines a combination of risk signatures, within a look back time window, indicative of fraud;
traversing the knowledge graph utilizing the graph traversal logic, by testing adjacency relations to identify the combination of risk signatures; and
In addition to the previously cited prior art, which does not disclose the limitations above, the closest prior art found for the newly added limitations was found to be:
Reddy US20190259033 discloses the process for constructing a fingerprint for an individual which comprises a compact knowledge graph representation of the behaviors of the individual related to financial matters. Once receiving a new financial transaction, time-based behavior over a period of time is reviewed, and a correlation of the current patterns to those of suspicious behavior are determined. A risk score is generated for the current instance and based on the risk score and monitoring of the behavior pattern; a prediction of an action is determined (see Figure 5). However, the reference does not disclose converting, without human intervention, a search query into graph traversal logic, wherein the search query is in a domain-specific language and defines a combination of risk signatures, within a look back time window, indicative of fraud; traversing the knowledge graph utilizing the graph traversal logic, by testing adjacency relations to identify the combination of risk signatures, as required by the claimed invention.
“Towards Fraud Detection Methodologies” discloses “fraud in financial platforms can therefore be modeled as a recurring lifecycle illustrating the continual response of financial institutions to fraudster behavior (Figure 3). Emerging fraud trends are identified through data analysis and mining techniques over the institutions labeled transactional database to assist in formulation of new security policies and authentication protocols. In response, fraudsters modify their methods based upon new security deployments while identifying alternative fraud opportunities within the current service platform. New fraud patterns resulting from deployed security enhancements are then identified initiating further realignment of the organizations fraud prevention strategy through implementation of additional authentication and security procedures.” Techniques for analyzing the patterns include supervised algorithms and hybrid algorithms. The hybrid algorithms include a graph-theoretic method is used to visually detect communities of interest. However, the reference does not disclose converting, without human intervention, a search query into graph traversal logic, wherein the search query is in a domain-specific language and defines a combination of risk signatures, within a look back time window, indicative of fraud; traversing the knowledge graph utilizing the graph traversal logic, by testing adjacency relations to identify the combination of risk signatures, as required by the claimed invention.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 (and parallel claims 8 and 15) in combination that overcome the prior art are:
converting, without human intervention, a search query into graph traversal logic, wherein the search query is in a domain-specific language and defines a combination of risk signatures, within a look back time window, indicative of fraud;
traversing the knowledge graph utilizing the graph traversal logic, by testing adjacency relations to identify the combination of risk signatures; and
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. The examiner emphasizes, that although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that the claims are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Related Art Not Cited
Motaharian (US 2020/0320619) generating graph that represents that represents a community of shared tradelines based on matches between attributes associated with tradelines such as account numbers or account type. A set of machine learning models can be trained using a training dataset to provide a set of rules that is optimized for evaluating the graph to detect synthetic identities.
Steiman (US 11693958) identifying anomalies using knowledge graphs
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 5/4/2026 with respect to the prior art are determined to be moot in light of the rejection being withdrawn as set forth under “Subject Matter Free of Prior Art”
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks directed to Step 2A Prong 2, the examiner asserts that the limitations of "persisting, in a time series database, the event data for each checkpoint as an immutable record for the user," "at a current checkpoint in a current user workflow of the user, retrieving, from the time series database, a subset of the event data within the look back time window," and "generating, in memory, a knowledge graph using the subset of the event data, wherein the knowledge graph comprises activities as vertices and qualifiers for activities as adjacency relations between activities.", are part of the abstract idea, except for those elements of the database and the memory. The additional elements merely store the data that is part of the abstract idea or generate the data that is part of the abstract idea at a high level. There are no technical details as to how the memory generates the knowledge graph and storing the data at a high level still recites the additional elements at the apply it level.
With respect to the remarks stating the limitations could not be performed by the human mind, the examiner has not characterized the claims to be a mental process and therefore the remarks directed to such characterization are determined to be moot.
With respect to the remarks directed to the limitation of dynamically modifying the current user workflow to prevent fraudulent activity, the examiner asserts this limitation is merely conclusory and does not provide any technical details as to how the workflow is modified. Rather, the limitation merely states that the modification occurs based on the collected result of the traversing (which is part of the abstract idea). At most, the abstract idea might be improved, but the claims do not recite a technical solution to a technical problem.
With respect to the remarks directed to Step 2B, the examiner first asserts that appropriate evidence is only required when the determination has been made that the claims recite well-understood, routine and convention limitations in prong 2. Then, under Step 2B, in light of the Berkheimer memo, the examiner is required to provide evidence to support such conclusion (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In this case, the examiner has not asserted that the claims recite well-understood, routine and convention limitations in prong 2, and therefore not such evidence is required. While the claims recite additional elements, the additional elements, as stated above, merely carry out the abstract idea. They are not recited with technical detail in such a way to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, for this reason, when the claim limitations are considered alone, or in combination, they do not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as was the case in BASCOM. The particular structures, asserted by applicant: immutable time-series records; an in-memory knowledge graph whose adjacency relations encode qualifiers and a particular execution mechanism (DSL compilation into traversal logic and adjacency-testing traversal at a checkpoint), are part of the abstract idea and are not recited in such a manner to improve the technology itself. Merely reciting these limitations to be stored in a database or in a memory does not preclude them from being part of the abstract idea and does not integrate them into a practical application. For the memory component, the specification state the memory can be [0049] Computer storage media includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by computing device 600. or [0051] Memory 612 includes computer storage media in the form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory. The memory can be removable, non-removable, or a combination thereof. Exemplary hardware devices include solid-state memory, hard drives, optical-disc drives, etc. Computing device 600 includes one or more processors that read data from various entities such as memory 612 or I/O components 620. Presentation component(s) 616 present data indications to a user or other device. Exemplary presentation components include a display device, speaker, printing component, vibrating component, etc. As, such the memory is general memory storing and executing functions at a high level of generality. The timeseries database is recited in only [0036 and 0039] and no further details beyond the database being that to store information is provided to the technical nature of the element.
For at least these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 6/12/2026
Prosecution Insights