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 Final office action is in response to the application filed on October 1, 2024 and the amendments to the claims filed on January 12, 2026.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 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; (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 2-12 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 9 further define the subset of features; 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 2-12 and 14-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record that the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception (Remarks, pages 7-9) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, 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, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept. See 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). Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection of record is maintained.
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 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
3/4/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619