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 communication is a first office action non-final rejection on the merits. Claim(s) 1-12, as filed on 07/17/2024, are currently pending and have been fully considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Taiwan on 02/29/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the TW113107318 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-12 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 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 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,
performing,
performing,
with respect to each of the groups, candidate group, and tagging each of the entries of accounting data included in the candidate group as a potential split entry.
Claim(s) 1 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: maintaining data (A), sorting and grouping data (B, C), determining data (D), tagging / classifying data (D), and thus are considered commercial practice known in financial auditing industry.
Claim(s) 1-12 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
Claims 1 and 7 additional elements are:
Claim(s) 1, 7 - “a processor” and “a data storage”;
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 and C are claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data being sorted and grouped without the recitation of a improvement, and thus are considered mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the additional elements that perform limitation D is claimed at a high level of generality and are considered nothing more that determination of data to be tagged - a date gap of entry(ies) is/are smaller than a predetermined time threshold so data can be tagged as potential split and candidate group - 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; 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 and 7 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-12 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
Claims 1-12 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 1-12 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alcorn (US 20170109832 A1), in view of SHU et al. (CN 117151879 A, hereinafter SHU), and further in view of CHHATPAR (US 20240362638 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 7, Alcorn discloses:
A method for auditing to detect transaction splitting activities, the method to be implemented using a system that includes a processor and a data storage, the data storage storing a plurality of entries of accounting data therein, each of the plurality of entries of accounting data including at least a transaction information sub-entry and a time sub-entry, the method comprising: (Figure1 and [0018] “one database 102a may hold a list of check transactions with descriptive data about each check such as the drawee routing and account numbers, the amount of the transaction, the date of the transaction, deposit account information, and status information”);
a) performing, by the processor, a sorting operation on the plurality of entries of accounting data stored in the data storage based on the time sub-entry, so as to create a sorted list of accounting data; (Figure 1 [0024] “In step 202, databases 102 are searched for records of deposits made into the account identified in step 201, for which drawee account ownership records are available in databases 102, and which were made within a predetermined time period”);
b) performing, by the processor, a grouping operation on the sorted list of accounting data, based on at least one grouping parameter and the transaction information sub-entries of the plurality of entries of accounting data, so as to obtain a plurality of groups of accounting data; and (Figure 1 and [0025] In step 203, deposits identified in step 202 are further filtered to identify deposits that were drawn on accounts identifiable as being owned by money service businesses.)
c) with respect to each of the groups, by the processor, determining whether the entries of accounting data included in the group indicate a [amount smaller] than a threshold, and in a case where the entries of accounting data included in the group indicate [amount smaller] than the threshold, tagging the group as a candidate group. (Figures and 3 [0028] determine whether the business account being investigated has received at least two even-dollar deposits within the time period of interest drawn on accounts owned by money service businesses; such as 14 days see par. 24; [0029] “determine if 100% of deposits received during the time period of interest from accounts owned by money service businesses were in even dollar amounts. In some embodiments, a threshold lower than 100% may be used. ”; [0031] “the account is flagged at step 303 as being suspect and this fact is reported”; Please Note: the account is a candidate group owned by a business);
Alcorn discloses the account where at least two even-dollar deposits within the time period of interest drawn is flagged, but does not disclose “indicate a date gap smaller than a predetermined time threshold”.
ZHU discloses: page 4 on step 3 “judge whether the time interval between two adjacent transactions is less than the defined time threshold based on the transaction time”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Alcorn to include the above limitations as taught by ZHU, in order to uses existing fund behavior data in the economic field to summarize the characteristics and rules of fund transactions and identify them, see ZHU background.
Alcorn discloses the account where at least two even-dollar deposits within the time period of interest drawn is flagged, but does not disclose the flagged of the possible split/ two deposits is done “tagging each of the entries of accounting data included in the candidate group as a potential split entry”
CHHATPAR discloses: “[0060] For example, of the activities identified by detection strategy 320a (“Purchase Order Splitting: DIRECT”) as being potentially anomalous, 18 were determined to be true positive results after subsequent analysis (see column 304),”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Alcorn to include the above limitations as taught by CHHATPAR, in order to decrease high rate of false positives is inefficient, see CHHATPAR para. 5-6.
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 8, Alcorn discloses:
Claim 2 “wherein step c) includes: c-1) with respect to each of the groups, determining, by the processor, whether [two deposits within the time period of interest] included in the group is smaller than threshold; and c-2) in a case where the determination of sub-step c-1) is affirmative, included in the group.”, claim 8 “wherein the processor is further programmed to, with respect to each of the groups: determine whether the entries of accounting data included in the group indicate [two deposits within the time period of interest] included in the group is smaller than the threshold; in a case [two deposits within the time period of interest] included in the group is smaller than the threshold” (Figure 3 [0028] determine whether the business account being investigated has received at least two even-dollar deposits within the time period of interest drawn on accounts owned by money service businesses; such as 14 days see par. 24; [0029] “determine if 100% of deposits received during the time period of interest from accounts owned by money service businesses were in even dollar amounts. In some embodiments, a threshold lower than 100% may be used. ”; [0031] “the account is flagged at step 303 as being suspect and this fact is reported”; Please Note: the account is a candidate group owned by a business)
Alcorn discloses the account where at least two even-dollar deposits within the time period of interest drawn is flagged, but does not disclose the time period of interest is claim 2 “a difference between an earliest date of transaction and a latest date of transaction…is smaller than the predetermined time threshold”, claim 8 “a date gap smaller than a predetermined time threshold by determining whether a difference between an earliest date of transaction and a latest date of transaction…is smaller than the predetermined time threshold”, “in a case where the difference between the earliest date of transaction and the latest date of transaction…is smaller than the predetermined time threshold”.
ZHU discloses: page 4 on step 3 “judge whether the time interval between two adjacent transactions is less than the defined time threshold based on the transaction time”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Alcorn to include the above limitations as taught by ZHU, in order to uses existing fund behavior data in the economic field to summarize the characteristics and rules of fund transactions and identify them, see ZHU background.
Alcorn discloses the account where at least two even-dollar deposits within the time period of interest drawn is flagged, but does not disclose the flagged of the possible split/ two deposits is done claim 2“adding, by the processor, a tag which indicates a potential split entry included in the group”, claim 8“add a tag which indicates a potential split entry to each of the entries of accounting data”
CHHATPAR discloses: “[0060] For example, of the activities identified by detection strategy 320a (“Purchase Order Splitting: DIRECT”) as being potentially anomalous, 18 were determined to be true positive results after subsequent analysis (see column 304),”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Alcorn to include the above limitations as taught by CHHATPAR, in order to decrease high rate of false positives is inefficient, see CHHATPAR para. 5-6.
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 11, Alcorn discloses:
Claim 5 each of the plurality of entries of accounting data further including a transaction amount sub-entry, wherein in step c), a plurality of candidate groups are tagged as candidate groups, the method further comprising: 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. Claim 11: “each of the plurality of entries of accounting data further including a transaction amount sub-entry, wherein the processor is further programmed to: with respect to each of those of the groups that is tagged as a candidate group, determine whether an accumulated amount of transaction of all of the potential split entries included in the 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, add a tag which indicates a confirmed split entry to each of the potential split entries included in the group.” ([0036] However if such a balance change is detected, the daily balance changes are further investigated in step 405 to determine if the balance in the account has changed by more than $1000.00 (or another suitable threshold amount) between any two days in the time period of interest. If not, the account is not considered as suspect, as shown in step 404. [0037] However if so, the account is flagged at step 406 as being suspect and this fact is reported. The embodiment of FIG. 4 may be especially useful in detecting the gradual buildup of an account balance by a series of small deposits drawn on money services businesses;)
Regarding claim(s) 9, Alcorn discloses:
“wherein the processor is further programmed to: with respect to each of those of the groups that is tagged as a candidate group, determine whether a number of potential split entries included in the group has reached a predetermined entry threshold, and in a case where the number of potential split entries included in the group has reached the predetermined entry threshold, add a tag which indicates a confirmed split entry to each of the potential split entries included in the group.” (Figure 3 [0028] determine whether the business account being investigated has received at least two even-dollar deposits within the time period of interest drawn on accounts owned by money service businesses [the threshold is at least two]; such as 14 days see par. 24; [0029] “determine if 100% of deposits received during the time period of interest from accounts owned by money service businesses were in even dollar amounts. In some embodiments, a threshold lower than 100% may be used.”; [0031] “the account is flagged at step 303 as being suspect and this fact is reported”; “It will be recognized that the threshold of two for the number of identified deposits is but an example, and other thresholds may be used in other embodiments… for example $700.00, $1501.00, $2322.00, or the like”);
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alcorn, SHU, and CHHATPAR combination as applied to claim(s) 1, and further in view of Buhrmann et al. (US 20090204457 A1, hereinafter Buhrmann).
Regarding claim(s) 3, the combination, specifically Alcorn discloses:
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 [at least two or another threshold] than a predetermined entry threshold, and in a case where the number of potential split entries included in the candidate group is [at least two or another threshold] 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. Alcorn discloses: Figure 3 [0028] determine whether the business account being investigated has received at least two even-dollar deposits within the time period of interest drawn on accounts owned by money service businesses [the threshold is at least two]; such as 14 days see par. 24; [0029] “determine if 100% of deposits received during the time period of interest from accounts owned by money service businesses were in even dollar amounts. In some embodiments, a threshold lower than 100% may be used.”; [0031] “the account is flagged at step 303 as being suspect and this fact is reported”; “It will be recognized that the threshold of two for the number of identified deposits is but an example, and other thresholds may be used in other embodiments… for example $700.00, $1501.00, $2322.00, or the like”);
The combination does not disclose is greater.
Buhrmann discloses: [0013] “If the number of transactions or the dollar amount exceed some pre-defined threshold, the transaction can be flagged as potentially fraudulent and further action can be taken”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Buhrmann, in order to further action can be taken, see Buhrmann para. 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, 6, 10, 12 are include allowable subject matter over art and would be allowed if applicant overcomes the 35 USC 101 rejection and are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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