DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication dated 5/20/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2016, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for consideration in this office action.
Priority
CONTINUATION
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application NO. 17/825,470 filed on May 26, 2022, now it is US Patent US12340373. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP. §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
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 not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application) without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, claim 1 is a system claim; and claim 9 is a method claim; claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium claim. Thus, independent claims 1, 9, and 20 are directed to statutory subject matter.
However, independent claims 1, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The abstract idea of the independent claims 9 is (claim 1 and 20 being similar in scope):
Claim 9:
interacting, at a communication interface, with an institution server computer via a first communication network, the institution server computer communicating data with a plurality of user devices via a second communication network;
receiving, at a data collection processor, from the institution server computer, a plurality of pieces of transaction data communicated between two or more of the plurality of user devices, the plurality of pieces of transaction data comprising first transaction data including first personal name data and first transaction amount data associated with the first personal name data;
identifying, at a data processor, a first user from the first transaction data;
determining, at the data processor, first valid transaction data, involving the first user, from the first transaction data;
identifying, at the data processor, a second user, from among candidate users associated with the first valid transaction data, the second user being different from the first user;
determining, at the data processor, second valid transaction data, involving the second user, different from the first valid transaction data, the second valid transaction data being directly or indirectly derived from the first user;
identifying, at the data processor, a third user, from among candidate users associated with the second valid transaction data, the third user being different from the first user and the second user;
generating, at the data processor, a valid transaction pattern based on the first valid transaction data and the second valid transaction data; and
detecting, at an abnormal transaction detection processor, an existence of an abnormal transaction data based on the generated valid transaction pattern.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon MPEP 2106.04, see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (issued October 17, 2019) (“2019 PEG Update”).
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers: 1) mental process; 2) Managing personal interactions between people under certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the drafted process is comparable to determining first/second valid transaction data; generating a valid transaction pattern; and detecting an existence of an abnormal transaction data, which can be done by a human mind. The abstract ideas, recited above, are: receiving a plurality of pieces of transaction data communicated between two or more of the plurality of user devices, the plurality of pieces of transaction data comprising first transaction data including first personal name data and first transaction amount data associated with the first personal name data; identifying a first user from the first transaction data; determining first valid transaction data, involving the first user, from the first transaction data; identifying a second user, from among candidate users associated with the first valid transaction data, the second user being different from the first user; determining second valid transaction data, involving the second user, different from the first valid transaction data, the second valid transaction data being directly or indirectly derived from the first user; identifying, at the data processor, a third user, from among candidate users associated with the second valid transaction data, the third user being different from the first user and the second user; generating a valid transaction pattern based on the first valid transaction data and the second valid transaction data; and detecting an existence of an abnormal transaction data based on the generated valid transaction pattern. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or managing personal interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04, see also 2019 PEG Update.
The recited computing elements (claims 1: a communication interface; an institution server computer; a first/second communication network; a data collection processor; an abnormal transaction detection processor; claim 20: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium) are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing element performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, since it amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the other additional elements i.e., interacting, at a communication interface, with an institution server computer via a first communication network, the institution server computer communicating data with a plurality of user devices via a second communication network, in independent claim 1 that can link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements that are just “applying it” or “generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e. a communication interface; an institution server computer; a first communication network; a data collection processor; an abnormal transaction detection processor; a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
Claims 10, 11, and 13-19 are further directed to additional abstract ideas because the steps performed are simply narrowing the scope of the abstract idea of the respective independent claim 9 since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. For example, claim 10 further describes generating the valid transaction pattern; claim 11 further describes generating the first transaction score; claim 13 further describes what the first personal name data entails; claim 14 on determining the existence of the abnormal transaction data; claim 15 describes sending a notification to a preset manager terminal; claim 16 also on determining the existence of the abnormal transaction data; claim 17 also on sending a notification to a preset manager terminal; claim 18 describes the various components of a deep learning module; claim 19 on using graphic neural networks; etc, which all of the limitation are simply narrowing the steps performed in claim 9.
Claim 12 is also directed to additional abstract ideas because it recites mathematical formulas or equations.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules, as disclosed in the applicant’s Specification in para. [0186-0190].
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. The other dependent claims (claims 2-8), which are similar in scope to the dependent claims 9-18, are rejected for the same reason as above. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1, 9, and 20 each contains allowable subject matter because the ordered combination of the claim limitations, i.e., “determine second valid transaction data, involving the second user, different from the first valid transaction data, the second valid transaction data being directly or indirectly derived from the first user; identify a third user, from among candidate users associated with the second valid transaction data, the third user being different from the first user and the second user, and generate a valid transaction pattern based on the first valid transaction data and the second valid transaction data” are not taught by current cited prior arts.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE Non-FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm 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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 9/27/2026
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights