Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/891,323

APPARATUS FOR DETECTING AND HANDLING ANOMALOUS BEHAVIOR BY USERS AND OTHER ENTITIES

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Sep 20, 2024
Examiner
LIU, I JUNG
Art Unit
3695
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
274 granted / 440 resolved
+10.3% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
474
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§103
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§102
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
§112
17.4%
-22.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 440 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1 or 6 recite(s) receiving definitions of a plurality of targets of each of a plurality of data sources, the targets comprising users of or that interact with, at least one of the data sources, receiving definitions of a plurality of behaviors, each behavior in the plurality of behaviors comprising at least one activity that is performed on at least one of the plurality of data sources, receiving definitions of a plurality of period types of special time periods for which the plurality of behaviors during at least some of the special time periods are expected to have means that deviate from means of periods outside of the special time periods, receiving, from each of the plurality of data sources, indications of actions performed by the plurality of targets using the plurality of data sources within a specified period, an identifier of the plurality of the targets that performed each of the actions, and dates of the specified period, applying the definitions of the plurality of behaviors to the indications of actions, for each of the plurality of targets to identify a plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets, identifying at least one applicable period type of the plurality of period types for the specified period, identifying a count for each of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets during the specified period, determining at least one statistic including a mean number of times each behavior of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets was performed by said target in at least one period before the specified period for each of the at least one applicable period type, determining at least one behavior score for each of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets for each of the at least one applicable period type by applying a model to the at least one statistic for said behavior and said target and to a number of times said behavior was identified as performed by said target, determining a period type score for each of the targets for each of the at least one applicable period type based on the at least one behavior score for each of the at least one applicable period determining a total score for each of the targets based on a the period type score for each of the at least one applicable period type for each target, and automatically revoking a target's privileges on at least one of the plurality of data sources by automatically retrieving identification information of a target from a database and sending the identification information and a revocation instruction to the at least one of the plurality of data sources responsive to the total score or at least one of the at least one period type score for said target being outside of a threshold indicating anomalous behavior of the target. These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 1: The claims are directed to the statutory categories of a system (apparatus) and a method, respectively. Step 1: Yes. 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes. The claim 1 or claim 6 recites the limitation of a plurality of targets of each of a plurality of data sources, the targets comprising users of or that interact with, at least one of the data sources, receiving definitions of a plurality of behaviors, each behavior in the plurality of behaviors comprising at least one activity that is performed on at least one of the plurality of data sources, receiving definitions of a plurality of period types of special time periods for which the plurality of behaviors during at least some of the special time periods are expected to have means that deviate from means of periods outside of the special time periods, receiving, from each of the plurality of data sources, indications of actions performed by the plurality of targets using the plurality of data sources within a specified period, an identifier of the plurality of the targets that performed each of the actions, and dates of the specified period, applying the definitions of the plurality of behaviors to the indications of actions, for each of the plurality of targets to identify a plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets, identifying at least one applicable period type of the plurality of period types for the specified period, identifying a count for each of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets during the specified period, determining at least one statistic including a mean number of times each behavior of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets was performed by said target in at least one period before the specified period for each of the at least one applicable period type, determining at least one behavior score for each of the plurality of behaviors performed by each of the plurality of targets for each of the at least one applicable period type by applying a model to the at least one statistic for said behavior and said target and to a number of times said behavior was identified as performed by said target, determining a period type score for each of the targets for each of the at least one applicable period type based on the at least one behavior score for each of the at least one applicable period determining a total score for each of the targets based on a the period type score for each of the at least one applicable period type for each target, and automatically revoking a target's privileges on at least one of the plurality of data sources by automatically retrieving identification information of a target from a database and sending the identification information and a revocation instruction to the at least one of the plurality of data sources responsive to the total score or at least one of the at least one period type score for said target being outside of a threshold indicating anomalous behavior of the target. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than hardware computer processor and computer system element, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the hardware computer processor and computer system element language, the claim encompasses a person can perform the steps of identifying applicable period type for a specified period, counting each behavior, determining a mean number for each behavior, applying a mathematical model, and determining a score, with the use of pen and paper. In view of the Specification ([0058] and [0074] and [0076]) the limitation of revoking privileges is performed by the human administrator, using the computer. Therefore, this limitation of revoking privileges is also a step that can be conducted mentally by a person with the aid of pen and paper by stating what systems the user has access to. For example, but for the hardware computer processor and computer system element language, the claim encompasses allows users to receive and apply the definition information and revoke privileges of users, with the use of mitigating risk. In view of the Specification ([0058] and [0074] and [0076]) the limitation of revoking privileges is mitigating risk of improper behavior and prevent user from performing activity he or she could have performed otherwise. Therefore, this limitation of revoking privileges is also a step that mitigating risk of fundamental economic practice of suspected of improper behavior. 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional elements: at least one memory, at least one processor and computer system elements are used to receiving, applying, identifying, applying, determining and revoking steps. The additional elements in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor or generic computing device performing a generic computer function of processing data (a computer processor and computer system elements). Specification [0013]-[0015] and [0075] supports that any conventional computer, computer storage, and database may be used to implement the claimed abstract idea. This computer processor and computer system element limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea. 2B: Claims provide(s) an Inventive Concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim 1 and 6 are ineligible. As for dependent claims 2-5, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claims 7-10, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 6. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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. I JUNG LIU Examiner Art Unit 3695 /I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 20, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12182791
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REMOTE DEPOSIT OF CHECKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 31, 2024
Patent 12125022
DATA SECURITY SYSTEMS CONFIGURED TO DETECT MICROCONTROLLERS IN PHYSICAL WALLETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 22, 2024
Patent 12014366
CONSOLIDATING APPLICATION ACCESS IN A MOBILE WALLET
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 18, 2024
Patent 11935047
Enhanced Feedback Exposure for Merchants Based on Transaction Metadata
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 19, 2024
Patent 11875314
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REMOTE DEPOSIT OF CHECKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 16, 2024
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+34.0%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 440 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month