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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 03/26/2026 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11-12 have NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7 are amended.
Claim(s) 3-5, 9-10 are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11-12 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 are all directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong One: Yes
Exemplary claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 recite the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
Claim 1 “A method for auditing to detect transaction splitting activities,
A)performing,
B)performing,
C)with respect to each of the groups, predetermined time threshold, and in a case where the entries of accounting data included in the group indicate a date gap smaller than the predetermined time threshold, tagging the group as a candidate group, and tagging each of the entries of accounting data included in the candidate group as a potential split entry,
wherein in step c), a plurality of candidate groups are tagged, the method further comprising: d) with respect to each of the candidate groups, by the processor, determining whether a number of potential split entries included in the candidate group is greater than a predetermined entry threshold, and in a case where the number of potential split entries included in the candidate group is greater than the predetermined entry threshold, adding a tag which indicates a confirmed split entry to each of the potential split entries included in the candidate group; wherein step d) includes: CLAIM 6 “d') with respect to each of the candidate groups, by the processor, determining whether an accumulated amount of transaction of all of the potential split entries included in the candidate group has exceeded a transaction amount threshold, and in a case where the accumulated amount of transaction of all of the potential split entries has exceeded the transaction amount threshold, adding a tag which indicates a confirmed split entry to each of the potential split entries included in the candidate group,”
d-1) assigning an initial value to a variable which is to be associated with one of the potential split entries included in the candidate group;
d-2) determining whether the variable has reached the predetermined entry threshold; CLAIM6 : “d-2') calculating an accumulated amount of transaction from a first one to a variable-associated one of the potential split entries included in the candidate group;”
d-3) in a case where the determination of sub-step d-2) is affirmative, adding the tag to each of the potential split entries included in the candidate group;
d-4) in a case where the determination of sub-step d-2) is negative, determining whether a current value of the variable equals a total number of the potential split entries included in the candidate group; CLAIM 6: “d-4') in a case where the determination of sub-step d-3') is affirmative, adding the tag to each of the potential split entries included in the candidate group;”
d-5) in a case where the determination of sub-step d-4) is negative, adding one to the variable and repeating sub-step d-2);
d-6) in a case where the determination of sub-step d-4) is affirmative, assigning each of the potential split entries that is attached with the tag as a confirmed split entry that is involved in potential transaction splitting activities; and
d-7) with respect to any confirmed split entry that has a duplicate in other candidate groups, removing the duplicate of the confirmed split entry;
the method further comprising
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 disclose(s) an abstract idea of detecting splitting activities for auditing, which falls into the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”. More specifically, the claims limitations above have concepts related to: storing data (A), sorting and grouping data (B-D), determining /calculating/ comparing / tagging / classifying data (E1-7), and thus are considered commercial practice known in financial auditing industry.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11-12 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11-12 additional elements are:
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7 - “a processor” and “a data storage”, “controlling a display to in a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI including at least a filtering setting block”;
The claimed additional elements that perform limitation A is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data being stored, and thus are considered mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the additional elements that perform limitations B, C, D are claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data being sorted and grouped without the recitation of an technical or technology improvement, and thus are considered mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the additional elements that perform limitation E1-7 are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more than data being determined, calculated, compared, classified, and tagged without the recitation of technological improvement, and thus are considered generality linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and/or field of use; the additional elements that perform limitation F is claimed at a high level of generality, and are considered merely data transmitted on a interface that can filtered data, and thus are considered generality linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and/or field of use; When view in combination, the additional elements merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generality links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 11-12 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 11-12 are not including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In addition, the courts have found computer functions claimed at high level of generality as not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e)
Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 11-12 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 11-12 are allowed over the prior art.
Alcorn et al. (US 20170109832 A1, hereinafter Alcorn) in view of CHHATPAR (US 20240362638 A1). is the closest prior art of the record
Alcorn discloses methods and systems for identifying and analyzing accounts that receives deposits and deposits drawn involvement on suspicious activities, see para. 20. Alcorn disclose deposits made into the account identified for investigation is filtered to identify the deposits made that are owned by money service businesses, see Figure 2 and para. 20-25. Further, a determination of whether the investigated account has received at least two even-dollar within a period of time; if 100% (threshold) of deposits received during the time period of interest from accounts owned by money service businesses were in even-dollar amounts, and if at least 75% (or another suitable portion) of the deposits to the account are drawn on accounts owned by money service businesses, the account is reported and flagged as suspect account, see Figure 3 and par. 26-30.
CHHATPAR discloses strategies 320 a-320 f may utilize various analyzes techniques to predict whether an activity is likely to be anomalous; for example, determine the presence of a potential anomaly based on criteria of a large direct purchase order being split into multiple smaller purchase orders, and determine the presence of a potential anomaly based on the criteria of a large direct product support purchase order being split into multiple smaller purchase orders, see para. 58. Further, CHHATPAR discloses on para. 60 and figure 3 activities identified as being potentially anomalous by the analyzes techniques mention above, for example as a “Purchase Order Splitting: DIRECT”, where 18 activities were determined to be true positive results after subsequent analysis (see column 304), and 183 activities were determined to be false positive results after subsequent analysis (see column 306). The total number of activities identified by detection strategy 320 a is 201 (18 true positive results plus 183 false positive results).
Although, Alcorn in view of CHHATPAR discloses account deposits / activities being identified as suspect / anomalous, and flagged as PO splitting direct; it fail to discloses all the details as it is claimed in the amended independent claims – “wherein in step c), a plurality of candidate groups are tagged, the method further comprising: d) with respect to each of the candidate groups, by the processor, determining whether a number of potential split entries included in the candidate group is greater than a predetermined entry threshold, and in a case where the number of potential split entries included in the candidate group is greater than the predetermined entry threshold, adding a tag which indicates a confirmed split entry to each of the potential split entries included in the candidate group; wherein step d) includes: d-1) assigning an initial value to a variable which is to be associated with one of the potential split entries included in the candidate group; d-2) determining whether the variable has reached the predetermined entry threshold; d-3) in a case where the determination of sub-step d-2) is affirmative, adding the tag to each of the potential split entries included in the candidate group; d-4) in a case where the determination of sub-step d-2) is negative, determining whether a current value of the variable equals a total number of the potential split entries included in the candidate group; CLAIM 6: “d-4') in a case where the determination of sub-step d-3') is affirmative, adding the tag to each of the potential split entries included in the candidate group;” d-5) in a case where the determination of sub-step d-4) is negative, adding one to the variable and repeating sub-step d-2); d-6) in a case where the determination of sub-step d-4) is affirmative, assigning each of the potential split entries that is attached with the tag as a confirmed split entry that is involved in potential transaction splitting activities; and d-7) with respect to any confirmed split entry that has a duplicate in other candidate groups, removing the duplicate of the confirmed split entry; the method further comprising controlling a display to display the confirmed split entry in a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI including at least a filtering setting block that enables a user to adjust the operations of step d)”;
Therefore, the italic limitations in combination with the whole claims limitations are clearly claimed in the independent claim(s) 1 is novel and unobvious. Claims 6 and 7 are similar to claim 1, and are allowed for the same reasons.
Accordingly, dependent claim(s) 2, 8, 11-12 are allowed for the same reasons stated above.
According, claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11-12 are allowable over the prior art, however, the rejection under 35 USC 101 should be overcome in order to have the current application allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by applicants amendment.
Applicant argues the claimed invention is significant more, see Remarks pages 11-13. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed to auditing of split entries data, where entries data are determined, calculated, classified, and tagged as confirmed split entries data. The confirmed split entries data are displayed in a GUI, where the GUI allow the user to filter using a setting block to adjust the operations of step d; displaying confirmed split entries data in a GUI that allow filtering to adjust the abstract idea operations is not considered an improvement of the GUI, instead it is considered using an existent technology to carry out the abstract idea. Therefore, the claimed invention does not see a user interface and an abstract idea that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity as argued by applicant.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-5PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights