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 1-22 were pending. Claims 1-15 and 21 were elected without traverse in response to a restriction requirement. Claims 23-27 are new.
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) 1-16, 21 and 23-27 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 of detecting money laundering, the method comprising performing, by a multi-party computation network;
receiving a secret-shared union tuple list from a first party computer and a second party computer, wherein the secret-shared union tuple list was generated using a first tuple list corresponding to first financial transfer data and the first party computer, and a second tuple list corresponding to second financial transfer data and the second party computer, and wherein the secret-shared union tuple list comprises a plurality of secret-shared union tuples corresponding to a representation of a union graph;
detecting one or more cycles in the secret-shared union tuple list by performing a multi- party computation on the secret-shared union tuple list, the one or more cycles comprising one or more directed cycles in the union graph; and
providing, to the first party computer and the second party computer, a notification of money laundering in response to detecting the one or more cycles.
The underlined elements represent certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic principles including risk mitigation because the claims recite detecting fraudulent transaction activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea amounting to adding the words apply it”, or the like. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements.
Claim 21 is similarly rejected as the only difference is it is directed to a computer comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code which also amounts to adding the words “apply it”, as noted above.
The dependents claims merely narrow the abstract idea by further describing the steps of the abstract idea in the independent claim such as claims 2-4 and 7-15, e.g., the notification comprises, detecting comprises, generated…using a union garbled circuit (cryptography), etc. Claims 5 and 6 merely further describe the computer network elements. Claims 23-27 are similarly rejected.
As a whole and in combination, the claims comprise the abstract idea and the words “apply it” and are therefore not patent-eligible.
The examiner has reviewed the prior art provided by the applicant and finds, similar to the international search report, that the present claims are not disclosed by the prior art. Mostly the present claims differ by reciting the receipt of a secret-shared tuple list form a first and second party generated using financial transfer data of each party and using each parties computer. The secret-shared union tuple list comprising a plurality of secret-shared union tuples corresponding to a representation of a union graph.
A multi-party computation is performed on the secret-shared union tuple list to detect one or more directed cycles in the union graph which represents the possibility of fraud.
The prior art listed comprises many of the same terms as the claims such as tuple list, union tuple, garbled circuit, cycles, fraud, etc. and are generally directed to the same field but do not disclose the recited claimed subject matter either in whole or in combination.
Conclusion
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