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 .
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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 1 and 15 are directed to a method. Claim 9 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
The claims, when the bolded limitations are removed, recite the following abstract concept.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for improving accuracy of fraudulent activity
account indications associated with one or more electronic transactions, comprising:
receiving, by a processor:
transaction data associated with a plurality of electronic transactions,
an indication of fraudulent activity associated with a transaction of the plurality of electronic transactions, and
context data corresponding to the transaction, the context data indicating a user input;
generating, by the processor, an account indication based on the indication of fraudulent activity and the context data;
providing, by the processor, to an electronic device separate from the processor, and based on the account indication, a request for additional context data associated with the transaction;
receiving, by the processor and based on the request, the additional context data from the electronic device; and
updating, by the processor, the account indication using the additional context data.
Claim 2 recites: wherein the fraudulent activity comprises an unauthorized withdrawal.
Claim 3 recites: wherein the account indication corresponds to an unauthorized credit transaction.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the plurality of electronic transactions includes one or more past transactions related to at least one account.
Claim 5 recites wherein the processor updates the account indication in a memory associated with an external transaction server.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the processor is communicatively coupled to one or more of a network interface or a machine interface.
Claim 7 recites: updating a heuristic algorithm stored in a memory using the context data or the additional context data.
Claim 8 recites: wherein the heuristic algorithm is trained to generate the account indication of fraudulent activity using sample data comprising one or more of other context data, image data, device data, or third-party data, and updating the heuristic algorithm increases efficiency by reducing computing resources required to generate subsequent account indications.
Claim 9 recites: A computer system for improving accuracy of fraudulent activity account indications associated with one or more electronic transactions, comprising a processor configured to:
receive, by the processor:
transaction data associated with a plurality of electronic transactions, an indication of fraudulent activity associated with a transaction of the plurality of electronic transactions, and context data corresponding to the transaction indicating a user input;
generate, by the processor, an account indication based on the indication of fraudulent activity and the context data;
provide, by the processor, to an electronic device separate from the processor, and based on the account indication, a request for additional context data associated with the transaction;
receive, by the processor and based on the request, the additional context data from the electronic device; and
update, by the processor, the account indication using the additional context data.
Claim 10 recites: wherein the fraudulent activity comprises an unauthorized withdrawal.
Claim 11 recites: wherein the fraudulent activity comprises an unauthorized credit transaction.
Claim 12 recites: wherein the transaction data comprises one or more past transactions related to at least one account.
Claim 13 recites wherein the processor is configured to update the account indication in a memory associated with an external transaction server.
Claim 14 recites: wherein the processor is communicatively coupled to one or more of a network interface or a machine interface.
Claim 15 recites: A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising computer readable instructions for improving accuracy of fraudulent activity account indications associated with one or more electronic transactions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receiving, by the at least one processor:
transaction data associated with a plurality of electronic transactions, an indication of fraudulent activity associated with a transaction of the plurality of electronic transactions, and context data corresponding to the transaction, the context data indicating a user input;
generating, by the at least one processor, an account indication based on the indication of fraudulent activity and the context data;
providing, by the at least one processor, to an electronic device separate from the at least one processor, and based on the account indication, a request for additional context data associated with the transaction;
receiving, by the at least one processor and based on the request, the additional context data from the electronic device; and
updating, by the at least one processor, the account indication using the additional context data.
Claim 16 recites: wherein the at least one processor is communicatively coupled to one or more of a network interface or a machine interface.
Claim 17 recites: wherein the at least one processor updates the account indication in a memory associated with an external transaction server.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the fraudulent activity comprises an unauthorized credit transaction.
Claim 19 recites: wherein the transaction data further comprises one or more past transactions related to at least one account.
Claim 20 recites: wherein the fraudulent activity comprises an unauthorized withdrawal.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as managing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of:
“generating, an account indication based on the indication of fraudulent activity and the context data, providing, and based on the account indication, a request for additional context data associated with the transaction, receiving, and based on the request, the additional context data from the electronic device, and updating, the account indication using the additional context data”.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the bolded limitations noted above as understood to be the additional limitations:
The claimed “processor”, “memory associated with an external transaction server”, “network interface”, “electronic device” or “machine interface” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
Performing steps or functions by a “processor” or “server” or “electronic device” merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05.
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
The receiving, generating and updating functions are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The functions of the claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors or computing system which receives, generates and updates data.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps or functions are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of finally updating an account information using additional context data.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Receiving, generating, providing and updating data by electronic means or hardware over a network has been recognized by the courts as routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)UD, citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, Lis USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Positively reciting a “processor”, “server” or “electronic device”, “network interface” or “machine interface” does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of the additional element do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. Each of the claimed electronic device, processor or server is noted to a be a generic computer for performing routine and conventional functions therein. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as the additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic processor, electronic device or server.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processor”, “server” and “electronic device are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Accordingly, the 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 claimed “processor”, “server” and “electronic device” are also seen as generic computer components receiving data performing generic functions without an inventive concept as such do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed processor”, “server” and “electronic device” are interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims recited in the affirmative.
The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination, the elements do not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant is reminded that a statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Each claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because each claim does not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1, 9 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganti et al (US Pub. No. 2014/0236829).
As per claims 1, 9 and 15, Ganti discloses a system, method and computer program product for analyzing financial transactions and determining the occurrence of fraudulent transactions. See the abstract of Ganti. Accordingly, Ganti teaches or discloses :
receiving by a processor:
transaction data associated with a plurality of electronic transactions, an indication of fraudulent activity associated with a transaction associated of the plurality of electronic transactions (see [0045] and [0048] of Ganti;
Context data corresponding to the transaction, the context data indicating a user input (see paragraphs [0020] and [0047] and [0096] );
generating, by the processor, an account indication based on the indication of fraudulent activity
and the context data; providing, by the processor, to an electronic device separate from the processor,
and based on the account indication, a request for additional context data associated with the transaction (see paragraphs [0020] and [0038] of Ganti;
receiving, by the processor and based on the request, the additional context data from the electronic device (see paragraph [0038] of Ganti; and
Ganti does not explicitly state “updating, by the processor, the account indication using the additional context data”.
However Ganti discloses:
At paragraph [0104] “Blocks 1120-1190, of process 1100, may be repeated one or more times. Each iteration of blocks 1120-1190 may be based on additionally received information and, thus, improve the calculation of the fraud score”.
From this teaching it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to note at the effective filing date of the invention that the account indication would be changed at each receipt of additional data and/or iteration using the additional data. The motivation to update the account information in the system and method of Ganti would have been to improve the calculation of the score thereby providing a more accurate indication of fraud.
As per claims 2, 10 and 20, Ganti discloses the at least one indication of fraudulent transaction activity comprises an unauthorized withdrawal. Applicant is directed to paragraph [0018] of Ganti.
As per claims 3, 11 and 18, Ganti discloses the predicted indication of fraudulent activity comprises an unauthorized credit transaction. Applicant is directed to paragraph [0018] of Ganti.
As per claims 4, 12 and 19, Ganti discloses the un-structured transaction set comprises past transactions related to at least one account. Applicant is directed to paragraph [0018] of Ganti.
As per claims 5, 13 and 17, Ganti discloses the first memory comprises an external transaction server. Applicant is directed to paragraphs [0045] - [0048] of Ganti.
As per claims 6, 14 and 16, Ganti discloses the processor is coupled to one or more of a network interface or a machine interface. Applicant is directed to figure 2 and paragraph [0055] of Ganti.
As per claim 7, Ganti discloses updating, with the processor, the heuristic algorithm using the context data or the additional context data. Applicant is directed to paragraphs [0050] and [0055] of Ganti.
As per claim 8, Ganti discloses:
the heuristic algorithm is trained to generate the account indication of fraudulent activity using sample data comprising one or more of other context data, image data, device data, or third- party data, and updating the heuristic algorithm increases efficiency by reducing computing resources required to generate subsequent account indications.
Applicant is directed to paragraphs [0038], [0040] and [0055] of Ganti.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine 2. grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,816. Although the patenting conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-20 of the '816 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '816 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 1-20 are contained in claims 1-20 of the '816 patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,810,593. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-20 of the '593 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '593 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 1-20 are contained in claims 1-20 of the '593 patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness -type as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,556,934. Although the patenting conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are directed to a similar subject matter contained in claims 1-20 of the '934 patent. The only difference between the instant application and the '934 patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 1-20 are contained in claims 1-20 of the '934 patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights