DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following is in response to an office action dated May 5th 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Response to Arguments
Art Rejection & 101 Rejection Analysis
Art Rejection
In light of Applicant’s remarks, Art rejection is withdrawn and moot.
101 Analysis
In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The analysis in line with current 101 guidelines. Even if the abstract idea is deemed to be novel, the abstract idea is no less abstract (see Flook- new mathematical formula was an abstract idea).
“ In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
Claim 10 which is illustrative of the independent claims including claims 1 and 20 and recites:
As to claim 10. A method comprising:
obtaining, by a compute device, financial account data pertaining to multiple individuals;
defining, by the compute device, a coordinate space in which to map the individuals associated with the obtained data, including performing a dimensionality reduction on the obtained data;
mapping, by the compute device, each individual according to the coordinate space;
defining, by the compute device, one or more centroids in the coordinate space as a function of features of individuals previously flagged as having a defined characteristic;
and flagging, by the compute device, each mapped individual that satisfies a distance
threshold from a corresponding centroid in the coordinate space or that is within a defined number of closest individuals to the corresponding centroid as having the defined characteristic.
2A, Prong One, It is a certain method of organizing human activity because
Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention is directed to a method of organizing human activity that is commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) that entails using the nearest neighbor techniques for mapping out suspicious activity based on historical activity (App. Spec. paras. 0014-0016; Figs. 3-5).
These limitations describe steps a person would take to identify patterns and or irregularities that may suggest suspicious activity by evaluating it against predefined criteria in which (see App. Spec. Figs. 3-5). Evaluating current information against historical patterns and criteria are nothing more than gathering data and applying a set of instructions to the data.
2A Step Two
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements recite hardware components such as a processor (see App. Spec. para. 0012-0014, 0017-0022; Figs 1-2), there does not appear to be any technology being improved.
Applicant's invention describes “the processor 212 is capable of receiving, e.g., from the memory 214 or via the I/O subsystem 216, a set of instructions which when executed by the processor 212 cause the detection compute device 110 to perform one or more operations described herein. In embodiments, the processor 212 is further capable of receiving, e.g., from the memory 214 or via the I/O subsystem 216, one or more signals from external sources, e.g., from the peripheral devices 226 or via the communication circuitry 218 from an external compute device, external source, or external network. As one will appreciate, a signal may contain encoded instructions and/or information. In embodiments, once received, such a signal may first be stored, e.g., in the memory 214 or in the data storage device(s) 222, thereby allowing for a time delay in the receipt by the processor 212 before the processor 212 operates on a received signal. Likewise, the processor 212 may generate one or more output signals, which may be transmitted to an external device, e.g., an external memory or an external compute engine via the communication circuitry 218 or, e.g., to one or more display devices 224.” (Applicant’s Spec. para. 0018)
Although the invention as claimed suggests there is a processor for evaluating the requests, this is similar to comparing received information against existing records to identity any patterns or irregularities. However, absent are technical details in the claim beyond generic computer implementation.
They are described at a high level of generality where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components.
Unlike, McRO, the present claims contain improvements to the context in which request for access is processed and not one of a technology or technological field.
Although the claims recite:
mapping, by the compute device, each individual according to the coordinate space;
defining, by the compute device, one or more centroids in the coordinate space as a function of features of individuals previously flagged as having a defined characteristic;
and flagging, by the compute device, each mapped individual that satisfies a distance
threshold from a corresponding centroid in the coordinate space or that is within a defined number of closest individuals to the corresponding centroid as having the defined characteristic.
these suggest a process of flagging irregularities that may be considered suspicious activity, absent is any support for the claims as recited for how it is an improvement to the computer or technical field beyond automating the process of mapping out information and drawing certain inferences from the evaluated information.
The innovation as claimed appears to be directed to the user’s objective of identifying irregularities based on the comparision of information received with predefined criteria, rather than the integration of a practical application.
In particular, absent is any indication as to how this process of comparing data amounts to an improvement to a technical field. There is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field of KNN type evaluations, because the data processing performed merely uses a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The invention as claimed recites a generic computer component and the claim does not pass step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B; The next step is to identify any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The additional elements are processor (see App. Spec. paras. 0016-0022) which is disclosed in the specification at a high degree of generality. Absent is any genuine issue of material fact that this component requires any specialized hardware or inventive computer component.
Likewise, the dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, claims 11-14 provide descriptive material of the conditions or rules used in the evaluation process. These claim limitations recite steps at a high level of generality and performed in a traditional manner and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claims 1, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 including dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Claim 10 which is illustrative of the independent claims including claims 1 and 20 and recites:
As to claim 10. A method comprising:
obtaining, by a compute device, financial account data pertaining to multiple individuals;
defining, by the compute device, a coordinate space in which to map the individuals associated with the obtained data, including performing a dimensionality reduction on the obtained data;
mapping, by the compute device, each individual according to the coordinate space;
defining, by the compute device, one or more centroids in the coordinate space as a function of features of individuals previously flagged as having a defined characteristic;
and flagging, by the compute device, each mapped individual that satisfies a distance
threshold from a corresponding centroid in the coordinate space or that is within a defined number of closest individuals to the corresponding centroid as having the defined characteristic.
The invention as claimed recites an abstract idea of fraud detection which is a method of organizing human activity that is a fundamental economic practice whereby a financial transaction is evaluated for fraud.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (see App. specification, paras. 0019-0027; Fig. 2). In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components to receive based on predefined instructions (App. Spec. Fig. 2). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Dependent claims 11-19 provide additonal details about how the predefined rules are applied to the to the data being evaluated based on the user defined criteria and do not address the issues raised in the independent claims.
For example, dependent claims 11-12 provides additional descriptive details about the transaction data evaluated, and therefore do not amount to a technical improvement or an integration of a practical application.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 571 272-3955. 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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019
Prosecution Insights