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
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Application filed on September 4, 2024, and Drawings filed on September 4, 2024.
2. Claims 1–20 are pending in this case. Claim 1, 12 are independent claims.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1. applicant claims the limitation of a related resource view that includes data for the first metric for each one of a plurality of related resources for which any of transacting identifiers that are associated with the entity have activity.
It is unclear what constitutes “for each one of a plurality of related resources”. It is unclear whether the it is the first metric or a related resource that is for “each one of a plurality of related resources”. Similarly, it is unclear what constitutes “for which any of transacting identifiers”. It is unclear what constitutes the entity have activity. It is unclear whether this entity is the same as the previously defined entity or it is specifically entity have activity that is separate from the entity that was previously defined. For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the entity here is interpreted as the same the previously defined entity.
Claim 11 and 16 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chiong, Pub. No.; 2018/0211317A1.
With regard to claim 1:
Chiong discloses a computer system comprising: non-transitory data storage configured to store: 1) data for a plurality of resources (See paragraph 30 data for a plurality of resources include for example data, media, metadata, historical data, and other user generated media and can include a database 232 configured to store historical quote information 234.), and 2) data that is based on data transaction request messages of how data transaction requests have been processed in connection with each one of the plurality of resources (see paragraph 48 the historical database includes at least one of order or request message data and trade data. The order data and the trade data are each associated with at least two previous orders. In some embodiments, each of the two previous orders were submitted by and/or relate to the same entity, user, and/or customer.), with each corresponding one of the data transaction request messages associated with a transacting identifier that identifies a party involved with the corresponding one of the data transaction request messages ( See paragraph 48 in some embodiments, each of the two previous orders were submitted by and/or relate to the same entity, user, and/or customer.); and a processing system comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor of the processing system, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising: processing an alert event that is associated with a target resource of the plurality of resources (See paragraph 50, if it is determined that a pattern, suspicion, or concern can be raised with respect to the order received as compared to the historical trade data, the first order is flagged.), wherein the alert event is linked to the transacting identifier that identifies the party involved with the corresponding one of the data transaction request messages on which the alert event is based (See paragraph 48 and 49 wherein the transaction is record therefore linked between the party is a entity, user, and/or customer.); selecting an entity that is associated with one or more transacting identifiers, which includes the transacting identifier associated with the alert event (See paragraph 50 and 51, determined that a pattern, suspicion, or concern can be raised with respect to the order received from an entity.); generating an entity level graphical user interface (See paragraph 58 and FIGS. 7, 8, 9, and 10 wherein each schematically illustrate examples of a graphical user interface implementing the present disclosure. FIG. 11 schematically illustrates an example of a risk mitigation interface output implementing the present disclosure.) that is used to concurrently display a plurality of views that comprise: (1) a target resource view that includes data for a first metric for the target resource (see paragraph 52 and 53 fig. 11 for the generated interface, subgroup of information containing the suspicious attributes is identified is selected and displayed to the user in the generated interface.); and (2) a related resource view that includes data for the first metric for each one of a plurality of related resources for which any of transacting identifiers that are associated with the entity have activity (see paragraph 58 fig. 11 wherein the pop up windows a target sources, while the counter party limits monitor displays related resource.).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2 and 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiong, in view of Rabinowitz, 20200219199 A1.
With regard to claims 2 and 12 and 17:
Chiong does not disclose the computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an override selection for a second metric; and modifying the target resource view to include data for the second metric, while maintaining the related resource view that includes data for the first metric
However Rabinowitz discloses The computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an override selection for a second metric; and modifying the target resource view to include data for the second metric, while maintaining the related resource view that includes data for the first metric (see fig. 3 and 4 and paragraph 62 and 63 wherein the user can select a specific metric of multiple metrics to override and display updated analysis with the selected metric). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Rabinwitz to Chiong so the user would be able to select metrics that would fit his or her needs and customize the graph to be more informed about the trade behavior and to be able to better identify irregular transactions.
Claims 3 and 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiong, in view of Priess, Pub. No.: 20150026027.
With regard to claims 3 and 13 and 18:
Chiong does not disclose the computer system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of views further comprises (3) a heatmap with different colors that displays data associated with each of the target resource and the plurality of related resources for the first metric.
However Priess discloses the aspect wherein the plurality of views further comprises (3) a heatmap with different colors that displays data associated with each of the target resource and the plurality of related resources for the first metric. (See fig. 9 for heatmap, see paragraph 102 and 103 The AUI includes a color-coded bar 870 in a region of the display, and the color-coded bar is an overall risk column for the user to whom the display corresponds. The AUI displays a color coding (e.g., red 830, yellow 832, green 834, etc.) representing thresholds corresponding to the component risk scores of each parameter of an event.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Priess to Chiong so the user can use the heat map to identify risks to be more informed about the trade behavior and to be able to better identify irregular transactions.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiong, in view of Priess, and further in view of Gar, 20120262472 A1. With regard to claim 4:
Chiong and Priess do not disclose the computer system of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an instruction to modify a time period for the heatmap; and dynamically updating the heatmap for the modified time period, wherein a number of time periods for the heatmap remains unchanged.
However Gar discloses the aspect wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an instruction to modify a time period for the heatmap; and dynamically updating the heatmap for the modified time period, wherein a number of time periods for the heatmap remains unchanged (See paragraph 25 wherein an analyst may select an appropriate view of the data, the heatmap timeline is created based on a selected first and last timestamp. Even if the full data series extends beyond the selected beginning and ending timestamp, the heatmap timeline may be created based on the selected start and end time. When a new time interval is selected, aggregated performance numbers may be recomputed for the selected timeframe therefore updating the heatmap). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Gar to Chiong and Priess so the user can update the heatmap to view updated information and to be more informed about the trade behavior and to be able to better identify irregular transactions.
Claims 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiong, in view of Yu, Pub. No.: 20080065510 A1.
With regard to claims 5 and 14:
Chiong does not disclose the computer system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of views further comprises (3) a sparkline for each of the target resource and the plurality of related resources for the first metric.
However Yu discloses the aspect wherein the plurality of views further comprises (3) a sparkline for each of the target resource and the plurality of related resources for the first metric. (See fig. 8 for sparkline, see paragraph 50 wherein FIG. 8 demonstrates how to visually find the appropriate parameters of the technical indicators such as moving average and etc. for investment(s) by using a technical indicator parameter search system. The example in FIG. 8 shows moving average parameters which is the first metric for the investment.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Yu to Chiong so the user would be able to use sparkline to monitor the transactions and be able to identify anomaly through the sparklines.
Claim 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiong, in view of Yu, and further in view of Priess, Pub. No.: 20150026027.
With regard to claims 7 and 15:
Chiong and Yu do not disclose the computer system of claim 5, wherein the plurality of views further comprises (4) a heatmap with different colors that displays data associated with each of the target resource and the plurality of related resources for the first metric.
However Priess discloses the aspect wherein the plurality of views further comprises (4) a heatmap with different colors that displays data associated with each of the target resource and the plurality of related resources for the first metric. (See fig. 9 for heatmap, see paragraph 102 and 103 The AUI includes a color-coded bar 870 in a region of the display, and the color-coded bar is an overall risk column for the user to whom the display corresponds. The AUI displays a color coding (e.g., red 830, yellow 832, green 834, etc.) representing thresholds corresponding to the component risk scores of each parameter of an event.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Priess to Chiong and Yu so the user can use the heat map to identify risks to be more informed about the trade behavior and to be able to better identify irregular transactions.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiong, and further in view of Chitalia, Patent No.: 10673714 B1
With regard to claim 8:
Chiong does not disclose the computer system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of views further comprises (3) a summary value for each of the target resource and the plurality of related resources for the first metric.
However Chitalia discloses The computer system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of views (see column 55 line 63 to column 56 line 7 for displaying summary metrics in dashboard of the user interface.) further comprises (3) a summary value for each of the target resource and the plurality of related resources for the first metric (see column 55 line 31 to line 47 wherein Controller 201 may subscribe to summary metric information for the identified elements (925). For instance, in some examples, controller 201 subscribes to summary information published on message bus 215 associated with the identified metrics for the identified or displayed infrastructure elements. The summary information may include summary value for the identified metrics.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Chitalia to Chiong so the user can view summarized information n about the selected metric o be more informed about the trade behavior and to be able to better identify irregular transactions.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiong, in view of McFarren et al., Pub. No.: 20200273022 A1.
With regard to claim 10:
Chiong does not disclose the computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an instruction to add a further transacting identifier to the selected entity; and dynamically updating the entity level graphical user interface based on data that is associated with the further transacting identifier.
However McFarren discloses the aspect wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an instruction to add a further transacting identifier to the selected entity (See paragraph 96 wherein The order processing module 132A exchanges data communications with the sending entity system 110 to support viewing, adding, updating and cancellation of transaction orders. For example, the order processing module 132A can manage transaction orders that have been submitted by a sending entity and process input submitted by the sending entity through the front-end portal 110A.”); and dynamically updating the entity level graphical user interface based on data that is associated with the further transacting identifier (See paragraph 96 wherein The order processing module 132A can also manage order records, display screens and reports that identify information for submitted transaction orders, such as order status (e.g., pending, disbursed, expired, etc.), payment status, transaction identification information (e.g., transaction identifier, order amount, secret code, recipient phone number, etc.), among others.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply McFarren to Chiong so new transactions can be added with identification information and the user can view the updated information on the interface and be informed about the transaction and whether it is irregular or not.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiong, in view of Priess, and further in view of Yu.
With regard to claim 19:
Chiong and Priess do not disclose the aspect wherein the plurality of views further comprises (4) a sparkline for each of the target resource and the plurality of related resources for the first metric.
However Yu discloses the aspect wherein the plurality of views further comprises (4) a sparkline for each of the target resource and the plurality of related resources for the first metric.(See fig. 8 for sparkline, see paragraph 50 wherein FIG. 8 demonstrates how to visually find the appropriate parameters of the technical indicators such as moving average and etc. for investment(s) by using a technical indicator parameter search system. The example in FIG. 8 shows that moving average parameters which is the first metric.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Yu to Chiong and Priess so the user would be able to use sparkline to monitor the transactions and be able to identify anomaly through the sparklines.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiong, in view of Priess and Yu, and further in view of Chitalia.
With regard to claim 20:
Chiong does not disclose the aspect wherein the plurality of views further comprises (5) a summary value for each of the target resource and the plurality of related resources for the first metric.
However Chitalia discloses the aspect wherein the plurality of views (see column 55 line 63 to column 56 line 7 for displaying summary metrics in dashboard of the user interface ) further comprises (5) a summary value for each of the target resource and the plurality of related resources for the first metric (see column 55 line 31 to line 47 wherein Controller 201 may subscribe to summary metric information for the identified elements (925). For instance, in some examples, controller 201 subscribes to summary information published on message bus 215 associated with the identified metrics for the identified or displayed infrastructure elements. The summary information may include summary value for the identified metrics.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Chitalia to Chiong so the user can view summarized information n about the selected metric o be more informed about the trade behavior and to be able to better identify irregular transactions.
Pertinent Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Friedman, Patent Number: 8751372, discloses a method and system for detecting potentially manipulative order patterns and assisting compliance professionals with analyzing and determining whether remedial actions are required with respect to such patterns to comply with governing regulations.
Griffin, Patent No.: US 8412605 B2: discloses a method for monitoring financial institution data from a plurality of financial institutions, including transactional data associated with multiple products and channels, to identify suspicious activity potentially associated with identity theft incidents.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DI XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1758. The examiner can normally be reached 9Am-5Pm est 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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DI XIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights