DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on February 9, 2026. Claim 1 is amended, and claim 9 is canceled.
Currently, claims 1-8 are pending, and Claim 1 is independent.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-8 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 6, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the newly-added features incorporate subject matter that the Examiner deemed allowable in the patent application (now US 12211106).
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim in the patent is unlike the claim here, at least, the claim here does not provide the detail implementation on training the Siamese network. But instead, merely reciting train a modify Siamese network without significant details of the algorithm and training dataset.
In the Remarks on page 7, Applicant argues that the cited combination of Tenner, Bloy and Ebel does not teach or suggest at least the bifurcated, two-pipeline architecture recited in amended claim 1. None of these references whether considered individually or in the combination proposed by the Examiner—discloses (a) an upfront classification of old card numbers into an upgraded group and a non-upgraded group, (b) a Siamese-network-based, cost-function-minimized matching pathway with retraining-to-threshold for the upgraded group, and (c) a parallel transformer encoder/decoder predictive….
In response to Applicant’s argument that the cited references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an upfront classification of old card number into an upgraded group and a non-upgraded group) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
However, the closest prior art of Tenner et al., (US 2003/0225742) discloses a method for assigning a new credit card number to replace the old credit card number associated with the same entity, correlating a first plurality of data records and a second plurality of data records, each data record of the first plurality of data records being uniquely identified, and determining a data record of the first plurality of data records and at least one data record of the second plurality of data records having an identical external identifier. Bloy et al., (US 2020/0118155) discloses a method for identifying potential changes to credit card types of users and automatically upgrading an the credit card to a relatively improved benefit card for a user; Ebel et al., (US 2020/0184488) discloses a framework that serializes transaction data from each transaction record by extracting the transaction data from the particular data structure and serializing the transaction data into a string of characters, and training a computer model using the available training data to determine the respective relevancy transactions; and Flitcroft et al., (JP 2022/508550) discloses a first group of credit card number and a second group of credit card number to the master credit card computer. None of the references teaches or suggests determine a first group of old credit card numbers that have likely been upgraded and a second group of old credit card numbers that have likely not been upgraded, determine a first plurality of clusters of new credit card numbers including one cluster of new credit card numbers associated with each old credit card number in the first group, use the trained modified Siamese network to determine one of the new credit card numbers is an upgrade continuation match of one of the old credit card numbers of the first group for each of the old credit card numbers of the first group, the determination including calculating a plurality of cost functions corresponding to respective combinations of old credit card number of the first group and successive one of the new credit card numbers and determining the new credit card number that is the upgrade continuation match of one of the old credit card numbers of the first group as being associated with a lowest cost function among the plurality of cost functions. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-8 are directed to computing devices (apparatus) comprising a processing element (processor) and a memory, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Step 1 is satisfied.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
The claims recite limitations of “receive transactional data for a plurality of credit card number, determine a plurality of old credit card number and a plurality of new credit card number, determine a first plurality of clusters of new credit card number including one cluster of new credit card numbers associated with each old credit card number, serialize the transactional data for each old credit card number and each cluster of new credit card number is associated with the old credit card number, embed he serialized transactional data in a plurality of input vectors, input the input vectors for each old credit card number…, input the output vectors into a transformer decoder to generate predicted transactional activity, compare the predicted transactional activity for one old credit card number with actual transactional activity for each new credit card number…, determine a new credit card number that is the continuation of the old credit card number according to a difference between the predicted transactional activity of the old credit card number, applying a plurality of filters to the transactional data to reduce an amount of new credit card numbers that are associated with each old credit card number, eliminating all of the new credit card number that have a different issuer from the old credit card number, eliminating all of the new credit card numbers that have transactions occurring in geolocations that are greater than a threshold distance from the geolocations of the transactions of the old credit card number, eliminating all of the new credit card numbers that have a date of first transaction that is greater that a threshold time period, generating an input vector for each day of the month for each month of transaction data, determine a plurality of transaction differences, determine the new credit card number that is the continuation of the old credit card number as having the smallest transactional difference, determine a first group of old credit card number, determine a second plurality of clusters of new credit numbers…, convert the transaction data for each old credit card number in the first group and the cluster of new credit card number associated with each old credit card number into a plurality of snapshots with an image-like data format, train a modified Siamese network with a plurality of instances of snapshots associated with a combination of an old credit card number not in the first group of the second group…, use the modified Siamese network to determine one new credit card number that is an upgrade continuation match of one old credit card number for each old credit card number in the first group”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processing element in electronic communication with a memory element”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person can manually perform the steps of: determining whether the new credit card numbers matched with one of the old credit card numbers, determining a first plurality of clusters of new credit card numbers including one cluster of new credit card numbers associated with each old credit card number, and compare the predicted transactional activity for one old credit card number with actual transactional activity for each new credit card number in the cluster” in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim falls within the mental processes grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “a processing element in electronic communication with a memory” and “train a modified Siamese network” do not take the claims out of the mental processes grouping because the recited “train a modified Siamese network” is merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As to learning (training) per se, such an argument overlooks the entire education system. Reciting machine learning is placing such learning in a computer context, offering no technological implementation details beyond the conceptual idea to use a machine for learning. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processing element in electronic communication with a memory element”. The Specification describes “The processing element 16 may include electronic hardware components such as microprocessor (single-core or multi-core), microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), alalonga and/or digital application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), or the like” (see ¶ 23). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulation, and transmitting information over a network. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processing element in electronic communication with a memory element”. The Specification describes “The processing element 16 may include electronic hardware components such as microprocessor (single-core or multi-core), microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), alalonga and/or digital application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), or the like” (see ¶ 23). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulation, and transmitting information over a network, at best, may perform the step of receive transactional data. However, reciting a generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-8 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights