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 .
Claim Status
The claims filed 12/24/2025 are entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are currently amended.
Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are original.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/30/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the first Office action on the merits on 9/25/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejections are maintained absent any specific arguments from Applicant.
35 U.S.C. 101
With regards to representative independent claim 1, the claim is amended to additionally recite “transmitting the first report to the third computer system based on generating the first report”. Applicant argues that the claim should be found eligible because it is similar to USPTO Example 21, eligible claim 2, in that it now recites both generating and transmitting an alert.
The argument is not persuasive. The example eligible claim, when looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination, amounts to significantly more than simply organizing and comparing data. The example claimed invention addresses the Internet‐centric challenge of alerting a subscriber with time sensitive information when the subscriber’s computer is offline. This is addressed by transmitting the alert over a wireless communication channel to activate the stock viewer application, which causes the alert to display and enables the connection of the remote subscriber computer to the data source over the Internet when the remote subscriber computer comes online. These are meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea (the general concept of organizing and comparing data) to the Internet, because they solve an Internet‐centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology, similar to the additional elements in DDR Holdings. These limitations, when taken as an ordered combination, provide unconventional steps that confine the abstract idea to a particular useful application (Step 2B: YES). Here, current representative claim 1 differs from the eligible claim in that it does not solve an Internet-centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology, nor does it solve a similar technological problem. Instead, the claimed generation and transmission of the report is performed by the additional elements in a manner which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component does not provide integration into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2, nor does it provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. Furthermore, 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.
For the above reasons, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more is maintained herein.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
US 12,086,874
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10-12, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,874. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The claims share substantially similar limitations as demonstrated by the following claim chart.
Instant Application
US 12,086,874
1. A method for electronically detecting money laundering activity via a machine learning model associated with a first computer system, comprising:
learning a writing style of a user based on one or more edits by the user to one or more writing prompts presented to the user via the machine learning model;
flagging one or more scenarios of a plurality of scenarios based on background information of the party and monitoring electronic transaction data associated with one or more transactions performed by a party, the one or more flagged scenarios associated with a first cause vector of a group of cause vectors, the electronic transaction data including one or more of a transaction amount, a transaction date, or a transaction location for each of the one or more transactions;
determining a first ratio of a first value associated with the first cause vector to a second value associated with the first cause vector in accordance with detecting a first potential case for money laundering in response to the one or more flagged scenarios satisfying detection criteria, the first value indicating a number of true positives associated with the first cause vector, the second value indicating a number of potential cases associated with the first cause vector; and
generating a first report associated with the first potential case in accordance with the first ratio being greater than or equal to a reporting threshold, the first report including a narrative comprising:
one or more facts associated with the background information and the electronic transaction data, and
one or more linking words associated with the learned writing style of the user, the one or more linking words linking the one or more facts together; and
transmitting the first report to the third computer system based on generating the first report.
1. A method for electronically detecting money laundering activity via a machine learning model associated with a first computer system in a financial computer network, comprising:
learning a writing style of the user based on one or more edits by the user to one or more writing prompts presented to the user via the machine learning model;
monitoring electronic transaction data associated with one or more transactions performed by a party, the electronic transaction data including one or more of a transaction amount, a transaction date, or a transaction location for each of the one or more transactions;
flagging one or more scenarios of a plurality of scenarios based on background information of the party and monitoring the electronic transaction data, the one or more flagged scenarios associated with a first cause vector of the group of cause vectors;
detecting a first potential case for money laundering in response to the one or more flagged scenarios satisfying detection criteria;
determining a first ratio of a first value associated with the first cause vector to a second value associated with the first cause vector, the first value indicating a number of true positives associated with the first cause vector during a time period, the second value indicating a number of potential cases associated with the first cause vector during the time period;
generating a first report associated with the first potential case in accordance with the first ratio being greater than or equal to the reporting threshold, the first report including a narrative comprising:
one or more facts associated with the background information and the electronic transaction data, and
one or more linking words associated with the learned writing style of the user, the one or more linking words linking the one or more facts together; and
transmitting the first report to the third computer system based on generating the first report.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
reporting the first potential case to a second computer system based on the first ratio being less than the reporting threshold;
adjusting the first value in response to receiving, from the second computer system, a result of an investigation indicating the first potential case is a true positive;
adjusting the second value based on the cause vector satisfying the detection criteria; and
transmitting, from the first computer system to a third computer system, the first report in response to the result of the investigation indicating the first potential case is the true positive.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
reporting the first potential case to a second computer system based on the first ratio being less than the reporting threshold;
adjusting the first value in response to receiving, from the second computer system, a result of the investigation indicating the first potential case is a true positive;
adjusting the second value based on the cause vector satisfying the detection criteria; and
transmitting, from the first computer system to a third computer system, the first report in response to the result of the investigation indicating the first potential case is the true positive.
3. The method of claim 2, in which:
the second computer system comprises a device interface residing at a financial institution; and
the financial institution comprises at least one of a bank, credit union, money services business, financial holding company, insurance company, insurance agency, mortgage company, mortgage agency, stockbroker, stock agency, bond broker, bond agency, commodity broker, commodity agency, trading company, trading agency, other financial service provider, other financial agency, stock exchange, commodity exchange, currency exchange, virtual currency company, virtual currency issuer, virtual currency service provider, virtual currency network provider, virtual currency computer provider, virtual currency dealer, virtual currency exchange, virtual securities exchange, bond exchange, other exchange, funds manager, investment company, private equity firm, venture capital firm, virtual currency company, merchant acquirer, payment processor, payment card issuer, payment card program manager, internet merchant, other organization related to financial services, or a combination thereof.
13. The method of claim 10, in which the second computer system comprises a device interface residing at a financial institution.
14. The method of claim 13, in which the financial institution comprises at least one of a bank, credit union, money services business, financial holding company, insurance company, insurance agency, mortgage company, mortgage agency, stockbroker, stock agency, bond broker, bond agency, commodity broker, commodity agency, trading company, trading agency, other financial service provider, other financial agency, stock exchange, commodity exchange, currency exchange, virtual currency company, virtual currency issuer, virtual currency service provider, virtual currency network provider, virtual currency computer provider, virtual currency dealer, virtual currency exchange, virtual securities exchange, bond exchange, other exchange, funds manager, investment company, private equity firm, venture capital firm, virtual currency company, merchant acquirer, payment processor, payment card issuer, payment card program manager, internet merchant, other organization related to financial services, or a combination thereof
4. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
detecting a second potential case for money laundering triggered by the cause vector;
comparing the reporting threshold to a second ratio of the adjusted first value to the adjusted second value; and
transmitting, from the first computer system to the third computer system, a second report associated with the second potential case in response to the second ratio being greater than or equal to the reporting threshold.
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising:
detecting a second potential case for money laundering triggered by the cause vector;
comparing the reporting threshold to a second ratio of the adjusted first value to the adjusted second value; and
transmitting, from the first computer system to the third computer system, a second report associated with the second potential case in response to the second ratio being greater than or equal to the reporting threshold.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising bypassing an investigation of the second potential case in response to the second ratio being greater than or equal to the reporting threshold.
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising bypassing an investigation of the second potential case in response to the second ratio being greater than or equal to the reporting threshold.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising learning the reporting threshold based on historical filings of a group of reports associated with one or more cause vectors, in which: the historical filings are manually reported by the user to a third computer system based on a value of each of the one or more cause vectors being greater than a certain value; and the reporting threshold is equal to the certain value.
1.
learning a reporting threshold based on historical filings of a group of reports associated with one or more cause vectors, the historical filings being manually reported by a user to a third computer system based on a value of each of the one or more cause vectors being greater than a certain value, the reporting threshold being equal to the certain value;
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising flagging each of one or more scenarios of the cause vector based on at least one of customer data, transactional data, or a combination thereof, satisfying a condition.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising flagging each of the one or more scenarios of the cause vector based on at least one of customer data, the electronic transactional data, or a combination thereof, satisfying a condition.
8. The method of claim 1, in which the first report comprises a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR).
5. The method of claim 1, in which the first report comprises a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR).
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting the first report to a third computer system based on generating the first report.
1.
transmitting the first report to the third computer system based on generating the first report.
10. The method of claim 9, in which the third computer system comprises a device interface residing at a government organization.
6. The method of claim 1, in which the third computer system comprises a device interface residing at a government organization.
As demonstrated above, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are anticipated, respectively, by reference claims 1, 10, 14, 11, 12, 1, 2, 5, 1, 6.
Claims 11-15 are directed to a system corresponding to method claims 1, 6, 2, 4, and 5. These claims are anticipated or at least obvious over, respectively, reference claims 1, 1, 10, 11, and 12 as the reference method claim is understood as being performed by a computer with a processor and memory.
Claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to method claims 1, 2, 4, 5 ,6. These claims are anticipated or at least obvious over, respectively, reference claims 1, 10, 11, 12, and 1 as the reference method claim is understood as being performed by a computer with a processor and memory (non-transitory computer-readable medium).
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.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, system, or non-transitory product, and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 11 and product claim 16. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
1. A method for electronically detecting money laundering activity via a machine learning model associated with a first computer system, comprising:
learning a writing style of a user based on one or more edits by the user to one or more writing prompts presented to the user via the machine learning model;
flagging one or more scenarios of a plurality of scenarios based on background information of the party and monitoring electronic transaction data associated with one or more transactions performed by a party, the one or more flagged scenarios associated with a first cause vector of a group of cause vectors, the electronic transaction data including one or more of a transaction amount, a transaction date, or a transaction location for each of the one or more transactions;
determining a first ratio of a first value associated with the first cause vector to a second value associated with the first cause vector in accordance with detecting a first potential case for money laundering in response to the one or more flagged scenarios satisfying detection criteria, the first value indicating a number of true positives associated with the first cause vector, the second value indicating a number of potential cases associated with the first cause vector; and
generating a first report associated with the first potential case in accordance with the first ratio being greater than or equal to a reporting threshold, the first report including a narrative comprising:
one or more facts associated with the background information and the electronic transaction data, and
one or more linking words associated with the learned writing style of the user, the one or more linking words linking the one or more facts together; and
transmitting the first report to the third computer system based on generating the first report.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite a fundamental economic practice, as they set forth or describe transaction analysis for purposes of fraud detection (mitigating risk). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The computer system/machine learning model in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 11 and 16 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: computer system (in conjunction with machine learning model and electronic transactions)
Claim 11: Claim 1 additional elements; processor; memory
Claim 16: Claim 1 additional elements; computer-readable medium
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [00398-00399], [00413-00416) about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 11, and 16 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 11, and 16 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adjaoute (US 2019/0325528 A1) discloses an artificial-intelligence based, electronic computer implemented system for generating an alert to a likelihood of money laundering activity within a financial environment, comprising at least one computer that includes both hardware and software components. The components form: a smart agent generating means for generating a smart agent for each entity capable of acting by itself or in concert with another in furtherance of money laundering activity; an updating means for updating each smart agent with transaction based data (financial and/or non-financial) associated therewith so that each smart agent models an individual entity behavior profile; a supervised learning model for a first-pass detection of potential money laundering activity; an unsupervised learning model for reducing false positive and enhancing detection of potential money laundering activity; and an alerting means for generating an alert to a likelihood of money laundering activity within the financial environment. Alternative systems are also provided.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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 W 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693