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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Final office action is in response to the application filed on August 1, 2025 and the amendments to the claims filed on September 23, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation, “provides a real-time application programming interface (API)” in lines 3-4 is objected to as the terms of the abbreviation should be capitalized, --Application Programming Interface --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-19 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 9 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 13. Claim 9 recites the limitations of receiving data related to suspected fraud from customers; extracting textual information from the received data using optical character recognition (OCR) technology; analyzing the extracted text utilizing Natural Language Processing (NPL) to identify and generate new fraud detection features; updating a feature repository with the newly identified features, the feature repository including a versioning system to track changes to the fraud detection features; constructing, by a Graph Recurrent Neural Network (GraphRNN) model, a graph representation of financial transactions and entities using the fraud detection features stored in the updated feature repository, including the newly identified fraud detection features, and historical data; applying the GraphRNN model to the constructed graph representation to predict potential fraud patterns by applying recurrent neural network techniques to the graph representation; making final decisions regarding a likelihood of fraudulent activities by combining the predictions from the GraphRNN model with outputs of the extracting and the analyzing; and generating alerts based on the final decisions, wherein the receiving, the extracting, the analyzing, the updating, the constructing, and the applying are performed as a continuous workflow in which the feature repository is updated with new fraud detection features generated from subsequently received data, and a further graph representation is constructed by the GraphRNN model using the fraud detection features stored in the feature repository as updated.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity / mathematical concepts. Issuing an alert based on fraud detection results recites a fundamental economic practice / mathematical relationship. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice / mathematical relationship, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” / “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. There is no structure in Claims 1, 9, or 13. The Graph Recurrent Neural Network in Claims 1 and 9 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The OCR technology, NPL, and versioning system in Claims 1 and 9 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 13 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite Graph Recurrent Neural Network in Claims 1 and 9 and OCR technology, NPL, and versioning system in Claims 1 and 9. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0029, 0046, 0049] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. In addition, performing the judicial exception steps using IRL merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2105(h). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 9, and 13 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 9, and 13 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity / Mathematical Relationships and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2, 10, and 18 further detail receiving of data; Claims 3 and 11 further detail the OCR module; Claims 4 further includes NPL techniques without adding significantly more; Claims 5 further details the versioning system; Claims 6, 14, 15, and 19 further defines the GraphRNN without adding significantly more; Claims 7 further defines the decision-making module; Claim 8 includes customizing the alert generation unit without adding significantly more; Claim 12 and 16 further includes receiving feedback; Claim 17 further defines the data analysis without adding significantly more. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-19 are not patent-eligible.
With respect to claims 1-8, data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760. Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized. In the instant claims, the claims are drawn to a system, yet there is no structure actually defining what the system encompasses, and therefore the claims are considered to be non-statutory.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 9-19) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, pplicant’s arguments that the claims of the present invention are analogous to those of McRo (Remarks, pages 13-16) are not found persuasive. In McRo, the court examined the specification, which described the claimed invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules, rather than human artists. Further, the court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that “improved [the] existing technological process”, unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Bascom, (Remarks, page 16), are not found persuasive. In Bascom, the court held that the inventive concept consisted of installing a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. However, the current claims to do not perform any such filtering action (or its equivalent) that is location specific and user specific. Further, the claims fail to set forth a specific combination of elements in specific locations but rather disclose known components functioning in their known capacity in their known locations. Hence, Bascom does not apply here.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem (Remarks, pages 16-19) are acknowledged. However, applicant’s claims fail to recite any hardware technology. The absence of structural elements means there are no additional elements within the claims. Thus, the limitations of the claims do not link the judicial exceptions to a technical field. The current claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or technical filed of network intrusion. Instead, the instant claims perform the abstract idea of determining if an alert should be issued based on fraud detection. In addition, performing the judicial exception steps using neural networks merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
10/8/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
