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
1. This office action is in response to an amendment received on 2/25/26.
2. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10-17, and 19 have been amended.
3. Claims 7 and 9 have been canceled.
4. Claim 21 is new.
5. Claims 1-6, 8, 10-21 are pending.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argues#1
Objections
Claim 19 is objected to for a typo, as original claim 19 incorrectly depended from claim 10. By way of the current amendments, claim 19 has been amended to depend from claim 15. Accordingly, withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested.
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 101
Examiner Response
The objection to claim 19 is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues#2
Without conceding the merits of the rejection, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite:
embedding, by a graph model, historical orders into historical graph embeddings, wherein the graph model is trained using a deep graph infomax approach that maximizes mutual information between patch representations produced by an encoder of a graph neural network and corresponding high-level summaries of graphs produced by a readout function; identifying, in real-time, an anomalous order; embedding, by the graph model, the anomalous order into an anomalous graph embedding; receiving a selection of an exemplar graph embedding of the historical graph embeddings, wherein the selection comprises retrieving, by a similarity search within a vector database, a historical graph embedding that is most analogous to the anomalous graph embedding; and providing, via a graph visualization tool, the exemplar graph embedding depicted as an exemplar graph and the anomalous graph embedding depicted as an anomalous graph, the graph visualization tool visually distinguishing the exemplar graph from the anomalous graph. At least as amended, claim 1 is directed to a specific technical improvement in computer-implemented graph-based machine learning and data processing systems, and therefore is patent-eligible.
As an initial matter, amended claim 1 is not directed to a fundamental economic practice or other abstract mental process. The claim does not recite rules for financial decision-making, accounting, or fraud adjudication. Instead, the claim is directed to a particularized computational workflow involving (i) embedding historical orders into a historical graph embeddings using a group model trained using a deep graph infomax approach that maximizes mutual information between patch representations produced by an encoder of a graph neural network and corresponding high-level summaries of graphs produced by a readout function; (ii) identifying an anomalous order and embedding it into an anomalous order graph; (iii) receiving a selection of an exemplar graph embedding of the historical graph embeddings, wherein the selection comprises retrieving, by a similarity search within a vector database, a historical graph embedding that is most analogous to the anomalous graph embedding; and (iv) providing visually distinguishing graph structures between the exemplar graph and the anomalous graph using a graph visualization tool. These operations are not performable in the human mind, nor do they merely automate a longstanding human practice. Rather, they reflect improvements to how computers learn representations of graph-structured data and retrieve and present those representations for analysis.
Accordingly, at least as amended, claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The claim recites a specific improvement to computer technology and therefore satisfies 35 U.S.C. §101. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the §101 rejection from claims 1,10, 15, and each of those claims depending therefrom.
Examiner Response
Based on the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection for claims 1-6, 8 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim 21 which depends from claim 1, is also patent eligible under section 101.
Examiner disagrees that independent claims 10,15 are patent eligible under section 101. These claims and their dependents are reciting the identified abstract idea, see the section 101 rejection below.
Applicant argues#3
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1-3 and 5-9
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being ostensibly unpatentable over US 2023/0214842 to Giovannini et al (hereinafter "Giovannini") in view of US 2024/0161106 to Mohammed et al (hereinafter "Mohammed"). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
As amended above, claim 1 recites specific limitations for (i) the graph model being trained using a deep graph infomax approach that maximizes mutual information between patch representations produced by an encoder of a graph neural network and corresponding high-level summaries of graphs produced by a readout function, and (ii) receiving a selection of an exemplar graph embedding of the historical graph embeddings, wherein the selection comprises retrieving, by a similarity search within a vector database, a historical graph embedding that is most analogous to the anomalous graph embedding. At least these limitations are not rendered obvious by the applied references, either individually or in combination.
Examiner Response
Based on the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection for claims 1-3, 5-9 are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues#4
Claim 4 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being ostensibly unpatentable over Giovannini in view of Mohammed and further in view of US 2024/0297897 to Elton et al (hereinafter "Elton"). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Claim 4 depends from claim 1. The addition of Elton fails to cure the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection based at least on its dependency. Claims 10 and 13 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being ostensibly unpatentable over Giovannini in view of Elton. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Claims 11-12 and 14 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being ostensibly unpatentable over Giovannini in view of Elton and further in view of Mohammed. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Claims 11-12 and 14 depend from claim 10. The addition of Mohammed fails to cure the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection based at least on their dependency. Claims 15-17 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being ostensibly unpatentable over US 2025/0061304 to Waghmare et al (hereinafter "Waghmare") in view of Elton. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Waghmare and Elton fail to render obvious claim 15. Claims 18-20 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being ostensibly unpatentable over Waghmere in view of Elton and further in view of Mohammed. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Claims 18-20 depend from claim 15. The addition of Mohammed fails to cure the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection based at least on their dependency.
Examiner Response
Based on the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection for claims 4, 10-20 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 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.
1. Claims 10-14, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, 15 are directed to a system, method and computer readable medium which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Representative claim 15 recites the limitations of:
A computer system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer storage medium storing computer-usable instructions that, when used by the one or more processors, causes the computer system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a plurality of orders, each order comprising accounts and transactional connections between pairs of the accounts;
embedding each order of the plurality of orders, by a graph model, into an order embedding, wherein the graph model is trained using a deep graph informax approach that maximizes mutual information between patch representations produced by an encoder of a graph neural network, and corresponding high-level summaries of graphs produced by a readout function;
hashing each order embedding corresponding to the plurality of orders to generate order graphs, wherein vertices within each corresponding graph correspond to the accounts and directed edges linking the vertices correspond to the transactional connections between pairs of accounts; and
determining an anomalous transaction based on a similarity search of a vector representations of the order graphs to vector representations of historical graphs stored in a database.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claim recites elements that are in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, steps for determining anomalous transactions in a plurality of orders, (e.g., receiving a plurality of orders, each order comprising accounts and transactional connections between pairs of the accounts; embedding each order of the plurality of orders, by a graph model, into an order embedding; to generate order graphs, wherein vertices within each corresponding graph correspond to the accounts and directed edges linking the vertices correspond to the transactional connections between pairs of accounts; and determining an anomalous transaction based on a similarity search of a vector representations of the order graphs to vector representations of historical graphs)
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.
Claim 10 is abstract for similar reasons.
(Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claims 10, 15 includes the following additional elements:
-One or more processors
-One or more computer storage medium
-Hashing of the plurality of orders
- A database
-The training of the graph model using a deep graph informax approach
-An encoder of a graph neural network
-A readout function
The one or more processors, one or more computer storage medium, hashing of the plurality of orders, database, the training of the graph model using a deep graph informax approach, encoder of a graph neural network and the readout function are recited at a high level of generality and are being used in their ordinary capacity and are being used as a tool for implementing the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application.
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
Therefore claims 10, 15 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)
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, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 10,15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 11-14, 16-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 10, 15 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Therefore, 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 (11-14, 16-20) are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 10-14, 15-20 are not patent-eligible.
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 MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at 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 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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 5/22/2026
Prosecution Insights