DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 1
Regarding claims 1-20 the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. As such, the analysis proceeds to Step 2. The 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) sets forth a revised Step 2A analysis which includes a two-prong inquiry.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2A Prong One
Prong one consists of determining if the claims recite a judicial exception, which includes abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon. Groupings of abstract ideas may include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity. Here, representative independent claim 1 recites limitations relating to identify suspected mule accounts :
receiving an input Identifying a number of desired clusters for a plurality of clusters;
in a multidimensional space comprising one dimension for each feature of the plurality of features,
defining each cluster of the plurality of clusters as a Gaussian distribution in each dimension of the multidimensional space;
for each entity of the plurality of entities:
for each cluster of the plurality of clusters:
calculating a distance between the entity and the cluster; and
based on the distance, calculating a probability that the entity belongs to the cluster;
based on the probabilities and an expectation maximization, recalculating the Gaussian distributions
until each entity belongs to at least one cluster of the plurality of clusters;
for an entity of the plurality of entities, in real time:
receiving at least one transaction associated with the entity;
based on a cluster to which the entity belongs, determining a peer anomaly score indicative of a probability that the at least one transaction is anomalous; and
if the peer anomaly score exceeds a threshold value, reporting the at least one transaction and the entity to a user.
The bolded steps above describe a fundamental economic practice, commercial interactions, and managing interactions between people, and therefore a certain method of organizing human activity. Further, the limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a human analog but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the recitation of the account database, receiving device, querying module of the processing server, and control module of the processing server, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human analog. For example, but for this language, the claim encompasses performing periodic savings with transaction controls by a human analog. Here, the mere nominal recitation of the generic computer components does not take the claim limitation out of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. As such, the claims recite an abstract idea under prong one.
In addition and/or in the alternative steps F-H are mathematical operations, as a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2A Prong Two
Prong two consists of determining whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
a fraud management server having at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the server being in electronic communication with a computing device of a bank, the processor comprising a distance calculation module and an expectation maximization clustering module, the server being in electronic communication with a database for storing a plurality of features for a plurality of entities associated with the bank, the computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the processor, to perform operations which comprise:
The additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claims are directed to the abstract idea. The analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2B
Step 2B consists of determining whether the claim provides an inventive concept by considering whether the additional elements go beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106; see also USPTO: July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
In the case of the instant claims, the generic application of the a fraud management server having at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the server being in electronic communication with a computing device of a bank, the processor comprising a distance calculation module and an expectation maximization clustering module, the server being in electronic communication with a database for storing a plurality of features for a plurality of entities associated with the bank, the computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the processor, to perform operations which comprise:
Note that the disclosure recites general computer products which are suitable to perform the claimed method (see eg. para. 0067-0069). Moreover, the specification does not contribute any technically-specific computer algorithm or code, but rather merely states that the claimed steps may be performed by the generic modules with the expectation that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of implementation without further instruction. The use of computing devices in this manner is merely what computers do, ie. performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, and automating mental tasks, and does not change the analysis. Whilst the implementation of such a solution may include the use of generic technical features, these merely serve their well-understood functions as would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art in the technical field under consideration. As such, the claims' invocation of the computer merely amounts to the limiting of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Here, the involvement of the generic computer products does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-eligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components in this manner does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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 exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, as discussed above. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Independent claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as independent claim 1 and is rejected accordingly. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Response to Arguments
First, the applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite a mathematical concept. The examiner’s position was in addition to a mental process, the alternative steps F-H are mathematical operations, as a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts”. The examiner maintains that each of these steps while not written mathematically , nevertheless are mathematical operations – where you perform a problem exactly as written , such as the claimed pseudo algorithmic steps for the an expectation–maximization (EM) algorithm, the iterative method to find (local) maximum likelihood or maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimates of parameters in statistical models, where the model depends on unobserved latent variables.
Second, the applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite a mental process or "human analog" (as alleged by pp. 3 and 6 of the Office Action) because "a claim with limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not recite a mental process" (emphasis added). The examiner disagrees as in a trivial two dimensional case the calculations are analytical.
Third, the applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite an abstract concept because "not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas (e.g., "a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation" is not a certain "method of organizing human activity Rather, claim 1 includes "receiving, via a user interface running on an analyst workstation in communication with the fraud management server, an input identifying a number of desired clusters for a plurality of clusters", "in a multidimensional space comprising one dimension for each feature of the plurality of features, defining each cluster of the plurality of clusters as a Gaussian distribution in each dimension of the multidimensional space" and "based on the probabilities and an expectation maximization, recalculating the Gaussian distributions until each entity belongs to at least one cluster of the plurality of clusters". Here the claim doesn’t do more than tell someone to “apply” an abstract idea on a generic machine. To be patent eligible, the claims must recite a particular, concrete manner of implementation that produces a real technological improvement (and the specification should support that). If it merely adds generic computer/cloud/hardware recitations, it is ineligible.
The applicant argues that the claims are directed to a practical application such that the claims are patent eligible under at least under Prong Two of Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis. The examiner disagrees as the additional components carrying out the invention have been identified and “Apply it” or equivalent language (e.g., “use a computer to implement,” “on a mobile device just instructs an actor to perform the abstract idea using generic technology. Per Alice and cases like Mayo, DDR, and many Federal Circuit decisions, that is not an inventive concept.
The applicant argues next that the recited elements reflect an improvement to a technical field. The applicant argues that claim 1 is directed to automatically identifying mule accounts, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would agree is unquestionably a highly technical field. The examiner disagrees that this is a technical field. Rather, it’s the abstract idea.
Lastly, the applicant argues the claim integrates any potential judicial exception into a practical application because it reflects improvements to "the functioning of the computer itself. For example, the claimed feature set "improves the functioning of the fraud management computer system, typically by improving both the speed and accuracy of peer anomaly detection." The examiner disagrees as the improvement must be to the components not to that method without the components.
For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RICHARD C WEISBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10AM-8PM PCT.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
RICHARD C. WEISBERGER
Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights