DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention III (claims 14 - 20) in the reply filed on 06/03/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a serious burden and the claims are directed to the same inventive concept. This found persuasive and the election restriction is withdrawn. NOTE: Claims 1 - 20 have been examined in this office action
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 non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
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).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using 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 effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using 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 effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 20 is/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.
Re Claims 1 - 8:
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a machine (i.e., server).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is involves receiving a current IPR associated with a user entering information to transfer electronic funds, detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, outputting indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, output indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud); commercial or legal interactions (detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, output indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receive, detect, output ….. indicating, etc.).
The mere nominal recitation of “server” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to receiving a current IPR associated with a user entering information to transfer electronic funds, detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, outputting indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. Although the claim refers to a “server”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving a current IPR associated with a user entering information to transfer electronic funds, detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, outputting indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud.
The mere nominal recitation of “server” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “a server” comprising “a memory including an input profile record (IPR) repository and a non-input profile record (non-IPR) information repository that is distinct from the IPR repository; and
an electronic processor in communication with the memory, the electronic processor configured to” perform the positively recited steps or acts. The claim also recites the combination of additional elements of the “output a control signal indicating …..”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “output a control signal indicating”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “detect”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering information to transfer electronic funds), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of the “server”.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 03/03/25 does not provide any indication that the technology is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least [0006] [0007] [0008] [0028] [0029] [0030]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Acuna-Rohter, WO 2014/145395; and Breitling, US Pub. No. 2020/0118138 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “output a control signal indicating”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “detect”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. See Acuna-Rohter, abstract, [0005] [0007] [0008] [0009] [0020] [0039] [0046] [0063] [0090] [0107]. See Breitling, abstract, [0011] [0015] [0039] [0040] [0043]. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “output a control signal indicating”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “detect”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 8 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Re Claims 9 - 13:
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 9, is/are directed to a machine (i.e., server).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is involves receiving non-IPR information associated with a user entering information to transfer electronic funds, detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, outputting indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, output indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud); commercial or legal interactions (detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, output indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receive, detect, output ….. indicating, etc.).
The mere nominal recitation of “server” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to receiving non-IPR information associated with a user entering information to transfer electronic funds, detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, outputting indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. Although the claim refers to a “server”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving non-IPR information associated with a user entering information to transfer electronic funds, detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, outputting indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud.
The mere nominal recitation of “server” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “a server” comprising “a memory including an input profile record (IPR) repository and a non-input profile record (non-IPR) information repository that is distinct from the IPR repository; and
an electronic processor in communication with the memory, the electronic processor configured to” perform the positively recited steps or acts. The claim also recites the combination of additional elements of the “output a control signal indicating …..”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “output a control signal indicating”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “detect”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering information to transfer electronic funds), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of the “server”.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 03/03/25 does not provide any indication that the technology is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least [0006] [0007] [0008] [0028] [0029] [0030]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Acuna-Rohter, WO 2014/145395; and Breitling, US Pub. No. 2020/0118138 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “output a control signal indicating”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “detect”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. See Acuna-Rohter, abstract, [0005] [0007] [0008] [0009] [0020] [0039] [0046] [0063] [0090] [0107]. See Breitling, abstract, [0011] [0015] [0039] [0040] [0043]. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “output a control signal indicating”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “detect”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 10 - 13 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Re Claims 14 - 20:
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 14, is/are directed to a machine (i.e., server).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is involves receiving a current IPR and non-IPR information associated with a user entering information to transfer electronic funds, detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, and
responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, outputting indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information; responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, output indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud); commercial or legal interactions (detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information; responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, output indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receive, detect, output ….. indicating, etc.).
The mere nominal recitation of “server” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to receiving a current IPR and non-IPR information associated with a user entering information to transfer electronic funds, detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, outputting indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. Although the claim refers to a “server”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving a current IPR and non-IPR information associated with a user entering information to transfer electronic funds, detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, outputting indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud.
The mere nominal recitation of “server” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “a server” comprising “a memory including an input profile record (IPR) repository and a non-input profile record (non-IPR) information repository that is distinct from the IPR repository; and
an electronic processor in communication with the memory, the electronic processor configured to” to perform the positively recited steps or acts. The claim also recites the combination of additional elements of the “output a control signal indicating …..”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “output a control signal indicating”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “detect”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering information to transfer electronic funds), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of the “server”.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 03/03/25 does not provide any indication that the technology is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least [0006] [0007] [0008] [0028] [0029] [0030]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Acuna-Rohter, WO 2014/145395; and Breitling, US Pub. No. 2020/0118138 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “output a control signal indicating”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “detect”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. See Acuna-Rohter, abstract, [0005] [0007] [0008] [0009] [0020] [0039] [0046] [0063] [0090] [0107]. See Breitling, abstract, [0011] [0015] [0039] [0040] [0043]. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “output a control signal indicating”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “detect”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 15 - 20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites, “The server of claim 2, wherein the plurality of time-based events includes a field blur (fb) event, a form focus (ff) event, a device motion (dms) event, a touch event (te), and a key down (kd) event.”
The claim uses acronyms, abbreviations or other labels in the claim without clarifying what the terms represent rendering the claims unclear and indefinite.
Claim 4 recites, “The server of claim 2, wherein the plurality of interaction-based events includes a (mms) event), a (mm) event, and a mouse click (me) event.”
The claim uses acronyms, abbreviations or other labels in the claim without clarifying what the terms represent rendering the claims unclear and indefinite.
Claim 5 recites, “The server of claim 4, wherein the plurality of time-based events includes a touch event (te), a key up event (ku), a key down event (kd), a character count of a given field at a given time (kk) event, a form focus (ff) event, and a field blur (fb) event.”
The claim uses acronyms, abbreviations or other labels in the claim without clarifying what the terms represent rendering the claims unclear and indefinite.
Claims 7 and 17 recite, “wherein the one or more time-based features includes a number of keydowns feature, a field blur to dms time (max) feature, a kd to dms time (max) feature, a time between kds (median) feature, a time between form focus (median) feature, a time between touch (avg) feature, a te to dms time (max) feature, a time between kds (max) feature, a kd to te time (max) feature, a te to kd time (max) feature, or a combination thereof.”
The claim uses acronyms, abbreviations or other labels in the claim without clarifying what the terms represent rendering the claims unclear and indefinite.
Claims 12 and 19 recite, “wherein the one or more transaction-only features includes a is_dest_seen_before feature, a feature, a delta_hours_last_addrecipientnma feature, a current_transfer_amt feature, a delta_hours_last_addrecipient feature, a count_addrecipientnma_1h feature, a count_ addrecipientnma_30m feature, a count_ addrecipientlh feature, a diffhist_current_transfer_amt feature, a count_ addrecipient_30m feature, a count_sendfundsnma_5m feature, a count_ addrecipient_5m feature, a current_transfer_num_zeros feature, a count_ addrecipientmma_90d feature, a count_ addrecipientmma_30d feature, a count_sendfundsnma_30d feature, a count_ addrecipientmma_7d feature, a count_sendfunds_30d feature, a delta_hours_last_sendfundsnma feature, a prop_is_source_seen_before feature, or a combination thereof.”
The claim uses acronyms, abbreviations or other labels in the claim without clarifying what the terms represent rendering the claims unclear and indefinite.
Claims 13 and 20 recite, “wherein the one or more destination-based features includes a count_dest_global_req_90d feature, a count_dest_global_req_7d feature, a count_dest_global_accounts_90d feature, a count_dest_global_req_1h feature, or a combination thereof.”
The claim uses acronyms, abbreviations or other labels in the claim without clarifying what the terms represent rendering the claims unclear and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acuna-Rohter, WO 2014/145395 in view of Breitling, US Pub. No. 2020/0118138.
NOTE: Inventions I (claims 1 - 8), Invention II (claims 9 - 13) and Invention III (claims 14 - 20) have been interpreted as obvious variants and have been rejected herein under a similar rationale.
(a)See pg. 6 of the Restriction/Election requirement 06/03/26 which recites:
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
(b)See pgs. 1 - 2 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 06/03/26 which recites:
Applicant respectfully traverses the restriction requirement on the grounds that the
Office has not established a serious burden for examining all claims together. The Office has alleged that the inventions have acquired separate status in the art due to different classification and divergent subject matter, and that they require different fields of search. However, Applicant respectfully submits that all three groups of claims are directed to the same core inventive concept: a server configured to detect authorized fraud associated with a user entering information to transfer electronic funds. The claims share substantial overlapping subject matter, including the same server architecture with a memory including an IPR repository and a non-IPR information repository, and an electronic processor configured to output a control signal indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud.
Moreover, Group III (claims 14-20) encompasses the features of both Group I and Group II, as Group III requires detecting authorized fraud based on both the current IPR and the non-IPR information. A search for the elected Group III would necessarily encompass the subject matter of Groups I and II, as any prior art relevant to detecting fraud based on both IPR and non-IPR information would also be relevant to detecting fraud based on either alone. Accordingly, there would be no serious burden on an Examiner to search and examine all claims together.
(c) See also, MPEP § 2129.
Re Claim 1: Acuna-Rohter discloses a server comprising:
a memory including an input profile record (IPR) repository and a non-input profile record (non-IPR) information repository that is distinct from the IPR repository (Acuna-Rohter, [0005] [0007] [0009]); and
an electronic processor in communication with the memory, the electronic processor configured to (Acuna-Rohter, [0005] [0009] [0020] [0046])
receive a current IPR associated with a user entering information to transfer electronic funds (Acuna-Rohter, abstract, [0007] [0008] [0009] [0020] [0039] [0063] [0090] [0107]),
Acuna-Rohter fails to explicitly disclose:
detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR,
and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, output a control signal indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud.
Breitling discloses:
detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR (Breitling, abstract, [0011] [0015] [0039] [0040] [0043] [0073] [0098]),
and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, output a control signal indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud (Breitling, abstract, [0011] [0015] [0039] [0040] [0043] [0073] [0088] [0098] [0105]).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Acuna-Rohter and Breitling are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to fraud detection. In this case, Breitling is related particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of authorized fraud detection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Acuna-Rohter by adopting the teachings of Breitling to provide detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR, output a control signal indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud.
One would have been motivated to improve accuracy and security.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 9: Acuna-Rohter discloses a server comprising:
a memory including an input profile record (IPR) repository and a non-input profile record (non-IPR) information repository that is distinct from the IPR repository (Acuna-Rohter, [0005] [0007] [0009]); and
an electronic processor in communication with the memory, the electronic processor configured to (Acuna-Rohter, [0005] [0009] [0020] [0046])
receive non-IPR information associated with a user entering information to transfer electronic funds (Acuna-Rohter, abstract, [0007] [0008] [0009] [0020] [0039] [0063] [0090] [0107]),
Acuna-Rohter fails to explicitly disclose:
detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, output a control signal indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud.
Breitling discloses:
detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information (Breitling, abstract, [0011] [0015] [0039] [0040] [0043] [0073] [0098]), and
responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, output a control signal indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud (Breitling, abstract, [0011] [0015] [0039] [0040] [0043] [0073] [0088] [0098] [0105]).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Acuna-Rohter and Breitling are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to fraud detection. In this case, Breitling is related particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of authorized fraud detection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Acuna-Rohter by adopting the teachings of Breitling to provide detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, output a control signal indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud.
One would have been motivated to improve accuracy and security.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 14: Acuna-Rohter discloses a server comprising:
a memory including an input profile record (IPR) repository and a non-input profile record (non-IPR) information repository that is distinct from the IPR repository (Acuna-Rohter, [0005] [0007] [0009]); and
an electronic processor in communication with the memory, the electronic processor configured to (Acuna-Rohter, [0005] [0009] [0020] [0046])
receive a current IPR and non-IPR information associated with a user entering information to transfer electronic funds (Acuna-Rohter, abstract, [0007] [0008] [0009] [0020] [0039] [0063] [0090] [0107]),
Acuna-Rohter fails to explicitly disclose:
detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, and
responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, output a control signal indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud.
Breitling discloses:
detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information (Breitling, abstract, [0011] [0015] [0039] [0040] [0043] [0073] [0098]), and
responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, output a control signal indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud (Breitling, abstract, [0011] [0015] [0039] [0040] [0043] [0073] [0088] [0098] [0105]).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Acuna-Rohter and Breitling are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to fraud detection. In this case, Breitling is related particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of authorized fraud detection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Acuna-Rohter by adopting the teachings of Breitling to provide detect that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, and responsive to detecting that the user is performing authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, output a control signal indicating that the user is performing authorized fraud.
One would have been motivated to improve accuracy and security.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claims 2 and 15: Acuna-Rohter in view of Breitling discloses the claimed invention supra and Acuna-Rohter further discloses wherein the current IPR includes a plurality of time- based events, a plurality of interaction-based events, or a combination thereof (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0049] [0054] [0091] [0108]).
Re Claim 3: Acuna-Rohter in view of Breitling discloses the claimed invention supra and Acuna-Rohter further discloses wherein the plurality of time-based events includes a field blur (fb) event, a form focus (ff) event, a device motion (dms) event, a touch event (te), and a key down (kd) event (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0049] [0054] [0091] [0108]).
Re Claim 4: Acuna-Rohter in view of Breitling discloses the claimed invention supra and Acuna-Rohter further discloses wherein the plurality of interaction-based events includes a (mms) event), a (mm) event, and a mouse click (me) event (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0049] [0054] [0091] [0108]).
Re Claim 5: Acuna-Rohter in view of Breitling discloses the claimed invention supra and Acuna-Rohter further discloses wherein the plurality of time-based events includes a touch event (te), a key up event (ku), a key down event (kd), a character count of a given field at a given time (kk) event, a form focus (ff) event, and a field blur (fb) event (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0049] [0054] [0091] [0108]).
Re Claim 6: Acuna-Rohter in view of Breitling discloses the claimed invention supra and Acuna-Rohter further discloses wherein, to detect that the user is performing the authorized fraud based on the current IPR, the electronic processor is further configured to:
generate one or more time-based features, one or more distance-based features, or a combination thereof based on the current IPR (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0060] [0088] [0091] [0092] [0093] [0108]), and
determine that the one or more time-based features, the one or more distance-based features, or the combination thereof indicate that the user is performing the authorized fraud (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0060] [0088] [0091] [0092] [0093] [0108]).
Re Claims 7 and 17: Acuna-Rohter in view of Breitling discloses the claimed invention supra and Acuna-Rohter further discloses wherein the one or more time-based features includes a number of keydowns feature, a field blur to dms time (max) feature, a kd to dms time (max) feature, a time between kds (median) feature, a time between form focus (median) feature, a time between touch (avg) feature, a te to dms time (max) feature, a time between kds (max) feature, a kd to te time (max) feature, a te to kd time (max) feature, or a combination thereof (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0060] [0088] [0091] [0092] [0093] [0108]).
Re Claims 8 and 18: Acuna-Rohter in view of Breitling discloses the claimed invention supra and Acuna-Rohter further discloses wherein the one or more distance-based features includes a distance feature, a displacement element feature, a ratio of displacement to distance feature, or a combination thereof (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0060] [0088] [0091] [0092] [0093] [0108]).
Re Claim 10: Acuna-Rohter in view of Breitling discloses the claimed invention supra and Acuna-Rohter further discloses wherein the non-IPR information includes transaction information, destination information, or a combination thereof (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0060] [0088] [0091] [0092] [0093] [0108]).
Re Claim 11: Acuna-Rohter in view of Breitling discloses the claimed invention supra and Acuna-Rohter further discloses wherein, to detect that the user is performing the authorized fraud based on the non-IPR information, the electronic processor is further configured to:
generate one or more transaction-only features, one or more destination-based features, or a combination thereof based on the non-IPR information (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0060] [0088] [0091] [0092] [0093] [0108]), and
determine that the one or more transaction-only features, the one or more destination- based features, or the combination thereof indicate that the user is performing the authorized fraud (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0060] [0088] [0091] [0092] [0093] [0108]).
Re Claims 12 and 19: Acuna-Rohter in view of Breitling discloses the claimed invention supra and Acuna-Rohter further discloses wherein the one or more transaction-only features includes a is_dest_seen_before feature, a feature, a delta_hours_last_addrecipientnma feature, a current_transfer_amt feature, a delta_hours_last_addrecipient feature, a count_addrecipientnma_1h feature, a count_ addrecipientnma_30m feature, a count_ addrecipientlh feature, a diffhist_current_transfer_amt feature, a count_ addrecipient_30m feature, a count_sendfundsnma_5m feature, a count_ addrecipient_5m feature, a current_transfer_num_zeros feature, a count_ addrecipientmma_90d feature, a count_ addrecipientmma_30d feature, a count_sendfundsnma_30d feature, a count_ addrecipientmma_7d feature, a count_sendfunds_30d feature, a delta_hours_last_sendfundsnma feature, a prop_is_source_seen_before feature, or a combination thereof (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0060] [0088] [0091] [0092] [0093] [0108]).
Re Claims 13 and 20: Acuna-Rohter in view of Breitling discloses the claimed invention supra and Acuna-Rohter further discloses wherein the one or more destination-based features includes a count_dest_global_req_90d feature, a count_dest_global_req_7d feature, a count_dest_global_accounts_90d feature, a count_dest_global_req_1h feature, or a combination thereof (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0060] [0088] [0091] [0092] [0093] [0108]).
Re Claim 16: Acuna-Rohter in view of Breitling discloses the claimed invention supra and Acuna-Rohter further discloses wherein, to detect that the user is performing the authorized fraud based on the current IPR and the non-IPR information, the electronic processor is further configured to:
generate one or more time-based features, one or more distance-based features, or a combination thereof based on the current IPR (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0060] [0088] [0091] [0092] [0093] [0108]),
determine that the one or more time-based features, the one or more distance-based features, or the combination thereof indicate that the user is performing the authorized fraud (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0060] [0088] [0091] [0092] [0093] [0108]),
generate one or more transaction-only features, one or more destination-based features, or a combination thereof based on the non-IPR information (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0060] [0088] [0091] [0092] [0093] [0108]), and
determine that the one or more transaction-only features, the one or more destination- based features, or the combination thereof indicate that the user is performing the authorized fraud (Acuna-Rohter, [0010] [0011] [0060] [0088] [0091] [0092] [0093] [0108]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and relates to fraud detection.
US 20220383323 A1
US 20220138756 A1
US 20150026027 A1
WO 2014160296 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, 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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights