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
This Non-Final office action is in response to the application filed on October 1, 2024, the amendments to the claims filed on January 12, 2026, and the Request for continued Examination filed on September 2, 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 2, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 13. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (a) generating, by one or more processors, a set of input features by processing an input data packet related to one or more transactions;(b) applying, by the one or more processors, a model trained using a machine learning algorithm to the ser of input features to computer an anomaly score for each of the one or more transactions;(c) computing, by the one or more processors, an expectation surface indicative of an expected value range for the set of input features, wherein the expectation surface is computed based at least in part on the set of input features, a correlation between multiple features of the set of input features, and the corresponding anomaly score with respect to the transaction, wherein the expectation surface is computed based on a subset of the set of input features and wherein the subset of features is selected using a local feature importance algorithm; (d) generating, based at least in part on the expectation surface by the one or more processors, an output comprising i) a detection of an anomalous transaction from the one or more transactions based on the anomaly score, ii) one or more factors from the set of input features associated with the anomalous transaction that are attributed to the detection and iii) a human-comprehensible explanation about a reason the one or more factors attributed to the detection based at least in part on an expected value range for the one or more factors; and displaying, by the one or more processors, the human-comprehensible explanation in a user interface and rendering a visualization of the expectation surface for visualizing a correlation between the one or more factors that are attributed to the detection in an interactive manner.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity/mathematical concepts. Providing explainable anomaly detection recites a fundamental economic practice/mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice/mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”/”Mathematical Concepts” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The one or more processors in Claims 1 and 13 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The model trained using a machine learning algorithm and computing an expectation surface in Claims 1 and 13 and GUI in Claim 13 appears to be just software. Claim 13 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one or more processors in Claims 1 and 13 and software of a model trained using a machine learning algorithm and computing an expectation surface in Claims 1 and 13 and a GUI in Claim 13. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 1 and 13 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, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0082, 0112, 0113] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. In addition, performing the judicial exception steps using ML merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2105(h). 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. Thus claims 1 and 13 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 13 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity/Mathematical Concepts and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 further define the model; Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 further define the expectation surface; Claims 6 and 18 further defines the exploration path; Claim 10 further define the anomalous transaction. 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 claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-8 and 10-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant’s argue that, “the claims solve a technical problem through the specific mechanism of the claimed expectation surface” citing Enfish and TLI Communications, (Remarks, pages 6-8), are not found persuasive. In Enfish, the court found that the inventive concept was a new type of data structure called self-referential table to improve the storing and retrieving data in memory. The court described this as an improvement in the functioning of a computer. However, the current claims do not purport to creating or improving any data structure or a computer. Hence, Enfish does not apply.
Applicant's arguments try to establish eligibility through Office Examples (Remarks, pages 8-12), are not persuasive. Specifically, the Office Examples are meant to be for training purposes and do not have the force of legal precedent. Further, Example 47 is directed towards the use of specifically trained ANNs to detect anomalies and is found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because:
“The claimed invention reflects this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection. Steps (d)-(f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step (d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f). These steps reflect the improvement 12 described in the background. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.”
The current claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or technical filed of network intrusion. Instead, the instant claims perform the abstract idea of determining if a transaction should proceed and if a user should be contacted. Therefore, Example 47 does not apply.
Applicant's arguments try to establish eligibility through Office Examples (Remarks, page 12), are not persuasive as the Office Examples are meant to be for training purposes and do not have the force of legal precedent. Specifically, Example 48 is directed towards the use of AI-based methods of analyzing speech signals and separating desired speed from extraneous or background speech. Claims 2 and 3 are found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because: “Claim 2 recites the same judicial exception as claim 1 but is eligible because the claim as a whole improves speech-separation technology and thus integrates the exception into a practical application of separating speech and is therefore not “directed to” the judicial exception. Claim 3 is eligible because it recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea), but the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application by improving speech-to-text transcription and is therefore not “directed to” the judicial exception.” The current claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or technical filed of speech-separation. Instead, the instant claims perform the abstract idea of providing an artificial intelligence salesperson. Therefore, Example 48 does not apply.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Bascom, (Remarks, pages 12-13), are not found persuasive. In Bascom, the court held that the inventive concept consisted of installing a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. However, the current claims to do not perform any such filtering action (or its equivalent) that is location specific and user specific. Further, the claims fail to set forth a specific combination of elements in specific locations but rather disclose known components functioning in their known capacity in their known locations. Hence, Bascom does not apply here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
9/29/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
