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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 6, 12 and 16 are canceled and claims 1 and 11 are amended with the subject matter of the canceled claims.
Response to Arguments
The 112 rejection of the claims is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The applicant’s arguments regrading the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits an affidavit attesting to the eligibility of the claims under section 101. The affidavit submits that the use of machine learning is solves problems associated with analyzing massive volumes of unstructured data received from multiple banks which must be analyzed quickly to provide an instantaneous approval or denial decision.
The Office asserts that the temporal aspect of applicant’s arguments is moot as the claims do not prescribe a particular timeframe to the activity. Neither do the claims require any particular volume of data or an approval or denial decision. Even assuming that the claims require the analysis of large amounts of data the MPEP makes clear that claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The Office asserts that the use of machine learning to analyze data, unstructured or otherwise is known, as shown at least by Mazari (2024/0176935) - [0008] In parallel, techniques for processing by machine learning for unstructured data are known.
The Office asserts that merely amending the independent claims with previously rejected subject matter from the dependent claims is insufficient to overcome the 101 rejection.
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, 3-5, 7-11, 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
1. A method for facilitating minimization of fees charged to customers with respect to electronic fund transfers associated with transactions, the method comprising:
receiving, by a facilitation agent, account transaction data associated with transactions initiated with respect to a plurality of customer accounts;
employing a machine learning platform to identify fee charges in the account transaction data;
employing the machine learning platform to determine a fee profile for the identified fee charges, the fee profile including a potential cause for each of the identified fee charges;
employing the machine learning platform to define a settlement path to minimize a likelihood of triggering a fee for a given customer account associated with a transaction based on avoidance of the potential cause for each of the identified fee charges; and
updating a settlement model based on the settlement path;
wherein the account transaction data comprises unstructured data from a plurality of different banks,
wherein identifying the fee charges comprises employing a machine learned fee identification based on pattern recognition within the unstructured data, and
wherein the machine learned fee identification comprises feedback reinforced learning via a convolutional neural network (CNN) trained on known fee scenarios, the known fee scenarios including:
identifying a value range known to correspond to the fee charges;
identifying a money transfer within a predefined temporal proximity of the transaction;
identifying a text string associated with the fee charges; or own failures initiated by a facilitator.
The underlined elements of the claim represent certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices or principles, because the claims are directed toward mitigating risk, particularly, the risk of incurring fees or charges resulting from financial transaction processing.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of a facilitation agent, and a trained machine learning platform are generically recited and amount to adding the words "apply it", or the like, to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the reasons above.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and include additional elements which add the words “apply it” or the like, to the abstract idea. As a whole, and in combination, the claims merely recite an abstract idea with the words “apply it”, or the like.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: facilitation agent in claim claims 1 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Conclusion
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 WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights