DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response/application filed on 09/08/2026.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 10, 16 have been amended.
Claims 6, and 14 have been canceled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
As per claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
• Claim 1 recites:
generate a plurality of account nodes in a node graph, each account node corresponding to a different account;
determine one or more respective pairs of the plurality of account nodes that correspond to a common entity;
separately collapse each of the one or more respective pairs of the plurality of account nodes into a respective single consolidated node responsive to determining the respective pairs of the plurality of account nodes corresponds to a common entity, wherein a particular account node holds information representing an account, an edge between a specific pair of account nodes represents transactions performed between nodes participating in the specific pair of nodes, wherein the single consolidated node retains historical transaction edge data from the collapsed account nodes; and
generate, based on the collapse, a resulting node graph having a reduced number of transaction edges compared to the node graph prior to the collapsing operation, thereby reducing processing resources for fraud detection. • Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, the claim(s) is/are directed to a method, a system, and a manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
• Under Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligiblity Guidance, the claimed invention as drafted includes language (see underlined language above) that recites an abstract idea of generating node graphs (a certain method of organizing human activity such as a commercial or legal interactions) but for the recitation of additional claim elements. Claims 10 and 16 recite similar abstract idea. That is, other than reciting “processor(s)”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, nothing in the claim precludes the language from being considered as performed by a person.
• Under Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligiblity Guidance, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. For example, the additional elements of “processor(s)”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, merely use a generic computer device and/or generic computer components as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
• Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The combination of elements is no more than the sum of their parts. Unlike the eligible claims in Diehr and Bascom, in which the elements limiting the exception taken together improve a technical field, the instant claim lacks an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
• Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, and 17-20 which further recite the abstract idea without recite extra additional elements.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 10, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brave (US 20170286565), in view of Kursun (US 20200167785), further in view of Ruan (CN 111934937 B).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 10, and 16, Brave discloses:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium ([0121] of Brave);
one or more processors ([0121] of Brave) configured to:
generate a plurality of account nodes in a node graph, each account node corresponding to a different account; (By disclosing, “The method comprises representing each of the plurality of observations using a relationship edge between two nodes, each of the two nodes representing an element related to one of the two different entities.” ([0006] of Brave); and “On the other hand, the observation 106 may be received from an online account, such as a LinkedIn™ account, whereas the observation 108 may be received from an Internet search result that also provides the Twitter™ account for John Doe” ([0032] of Brave);
determine one or more respective pairs of the plurality of account nodes that correspond to a common entity (By disclosing, “each of the elements from the various observations are represented by nodes. Thus, the name John Doe is represented by a node, the e-mail address johndoe@example.com is represented by another node, etc. In one implementation, the information cataloging system compares an element received from an observation with existing elements stored in the system and if an exact match is found for the newly received element, the nodes representing such similar elements are collapsed into one node” ([0033], [0034], [0039], Fig. 1, Fig. 3 of Brave));
separately collapse each of the one or more respective pairs of the plurality of account nodes into a respective single consolidated node responsive to determining the respective pairs of the plurality of account nodes corresponds to a common entity, wherein a particular account node holds information representing an account (By disclosing, “Node 134 represents the e-mail address johndoe@example.edu and a node 136 represents a social networking account address @johndoe, each coming from the observation 108.” ([0038], [0033], [0034], [0039], Fig. 1, Fig. 3 of Brave)); and
generate, based on the collapse, a resulting node graph having a reduced number of transaction edges compared to the node graph prior to the collapsing operation, thereby reducing processing resources for fraud detection (By disclosing, “For example, if the system notices that there are two nodes with high similarity the system may collapse these two nodes into one and re-compute the distances related to the collapsed node. For example, in the illustrated example, each of the observations 302 and 304 have node P1 and P1 with the same phone number. As a result, the system would collapse these two nodes into one node, as represented on the resulting graph on the right side of FIG. 3.” ([0074], [0038], [0033], [0034], [0039], Fig. 1, Fig. 3 of Brave)).
Brave does not expressly disclose, but Kursun teaches:
an edge between a specific pair of account nodes represents transactions performed between nodes participating in the specific pair of nodes, (By disclosing, “A dynamic directed graph is generated, where the nodes of the dynamic directed graph represent one or more accounts (e.g., financial accounts, user profiles, entity profiles, or the like), and the edges of the dynamic directed graph represent transactions between the nodes (i.e., transactions from one account to another account).” ([0032] of Kursun)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Brave in view of Kursun to include an edge between a specific pair of account nodes represents transactions performed between nodes participating in the specific pair of nodes. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the system to analyze the accounts for fraudulent activities.
And Ruan teaches
wherein the single consolidated node retains edge data from the collapsed nodes. (By disclosing, “In this embodiment, for each layer exists between the edge, in the aggregation node network are reserved, so the aggregation node network comprises the edge information of each network.” ([0069] of Ruan)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Brave and Kursun, in view of Ruan to include techniques of “wherein the single consolidated node retains edge data from the collapsed nodes”. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the system to analyze the accounts for fraudulent activities from collapsed nodes.
Regarding claim(s) 2, 11, and 17, Brave discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to collapse a pair of the one or more respective pairs of the plurality of account nodes into a single consolidated node based on each of the account nodes of the pair comprising an identical customer number. (By disclosing, “For example, if the system notices that there are two nodes with high similarity the system may collapse these two nodes into one and re-compute the distances related to the collapsed node. For example, in the illustrated example, each of the observations 302 and 304 have node P1 and P1 with the same phone number. As a result, the system would collapse these two nodes into one node, as represented on the resulting graph on the right side of FIG. 3.” ([0074], [0038], [0033], [0034], [0039], Fig. 1, Fig. 3 of Brave)).
Regarding claim(s) 3, 12, and 18, Brave discloses:
wherein collapsing a pair of account nodes into a single consolidated node comprises: removing the pair of nodes and any transaction edges between the pair of nodes from the node graph; generating the single consolidated node by inserting field-value pairs of the removed pair of nodes into the consolidated node; and replacing transaction edges between the removed pair of nodes and other nodes of the node graph with transaction edges connecting the consolidated node and the other nodes of the node graph. ([0074], [0038], [0033], [0034], [0039], Fig. 1, Fig. 3 of Brave).
Regarding claim(s) 4, Brave discloses:
wherein the determination that account nodes correspond to a common entity is based on the transaction edges between the nodes satisfying a set of criteria. (By disclosing, “After assigning the node to various elements and determining the edges and the distances of the edges, the system initiates an iterative traversal to generate relation between various nodes. For example, the system may start traversing at point P2 and start traversing all the nodes within a first distance (as may be illustrated by the circle 312). In doing so, the system may reduce the amount of nodes within a given circle. For example, if the system notices that there are two nodes with high similarity the system may collapse these two nodes into one and re-compute the distances related to the collapsed node. For example, in the illustrated example, each of the observations 302 and 304 have node P1 and P1 with the same phone number. As a result, the system would collapse these two nodes into one node, as represented on the resulting graph on the right side of FIG. 3.” ([0074] of Brave)).
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brave (US 20170286565), in view of Kursun (US 20200167785), further in view of Ruan (CN 111934937 B), and Funk (US 11061874).
Regarding claim(s) 5, 13, 19, Brave does not disclose, but Funk teaches:
fuzzy matching of one or more personal identifiable information (PII) attributes of the respective pairs. (Col 7 line 56 – Col 8 line 24, and Col 15 lines 14-32 of Funk).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Brave, Kursun and Ruan, in view of Funk to include techniques of using fuzzy matching of one or more personal identifiable information (PII) attributes of the respective pairs. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would leverage the advantages of using fuzzy matching (e.g. enhanced data integration, improved accuracy, etc).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brave (US 20170286565), in view of Kursun (US 20200167785), further in view of Ruan (CN 111934937 B), and Yang (CN 110941664 A).
Regarding claim(s) 7, Brave does not disclose, but Yang teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to resolve conflicting field-value pairs between the respective pairs of the plurality of account nodes using a most recent timestamp rule during the collapsing operation. (By disclosing, “the graph of several types in the same node are combined, realizes multi-combined type graph, primary fused cross-type information, further connected to the same node, satisfies the predetermined association condition are combined to realize the full fusion of cross-type information, digging deep information effectively, avoids information loss and key evidence chain break, so that the knowledge map used in the anomaly detection service scene, can play an effective role. Further, the second merging module 603 is specifically used for according to the time attribute information and/or the spatial attribute information of the edge, the same node the primary knowledge map in connection with the difference between the temporal and/or spatial difference in the preset range of the edge to obtain knowledge map.” ([0162]-[0165] of Yang)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Brave, Kursun and Ruan in view of Yang to include techniques of “wherein the one or more processors are configured to resolve conflicting field-value pairs between the respective pairs of the plurality of account nodes using a most recent timestamp rule during the collapsing operation”. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would improve the accuracy for the nodal graph.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brave (US 20170286565), in view of Kursun (US 20200167785), further in view of Ruan (CN 111934937 B), and Luo (CN 113449150A).
Regarding claim(s) 8, Brave does not disclose, but Yang teaches:
wherein the collapsing is triggered periodically or responsive to the number of account nodes exceeding a threshold within a subset of the node graph. (By disclosing, “constructing a transaction network graph, marking the determined fraud address, and analyzing the stain from the node of the fraud address as the starting point, marking the fraud high associated address, and again performing the taint analysis after combining the fraud node and the fraud high associated node; continuously iterative calculation updating-combining the fraud associated node to obtain the final characteristic fund flow” (Abstract of Luo)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Brave, Kursun and Ruan, in view of Luo to include techniques of “wherein the collapsing is triggered periodically”. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would improve the accuracy for the nodal graph.
Claim(s) 9, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brave (US 20170286565), in view of Kursun (US 20200167785), further in view of Ruan (CN 111934937 B), and Su (US 20240078436).
Regarding claim(s) 9, 15, 20, Brave does not disclose, but Su teaches:
propagate a fraudulent flag from the single consolidated node to other nodes connected by transaction edges. (By disclosing, nodes can be labeled as malicious node. ([0045] of Su); and “The node classification task of the GCN model 10 is to determine the classification labels of nodes of the graph based on their neighbors.” ([0035] of Su)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify invention of Brave, Kursun and Ruan, in view of Su to include techniques of propagate a fraudulent flag from the single consolidated node to other nodes connected by transaction edges. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the system to identify a fraud ring.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the amended claim is patent-eligible subject matter.
The Examiner, respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that:
the functions recited in the claim such as “generating a plurality of account nodes…”, “determine…”, “separately collapse…”, and “generate…, a resulting node…” are generic computer functions that can be performed by generic computers;
the functions recited in the claim such as “generating a plurality of account nodes…”, “determine…”, “separately collapse…”, and “generate…, a resulting node…” can also performed manually without any additional elements; and
even if the functions recited in the claim such as “generating a plurality of account nodes…”, “determine…”, “separately collapse…”, and “generate…, a resulting node…” are performed by generic computers and/or generic computer components, generic computers and/or generic computer components are used as a tool to perform the functions. The use of generic computers and/or generic computer components as a tool to implement the functions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer and/or network performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection initiated by applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20100169137 to Jastrebski for disclosing:
systems and methods to analyze data using a graph. The system receives account information that identifies a first account and generates a first graph based on the first account. The graph includes a first score. Next, the system communicates a first interface to a first agent that is selected from a plurality of agents. The first interface includes the first graph. The first graph represents the first account as a first node. The first graph further represents a first plurality of accounts as a first plurality of nodes that include the first node. The first graph further represents a first plurality of account associations between the first plurality of accounts as a first plurality of edges that connect the first plurality of nodes.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 AM-5 PM.
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 at 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 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.
/DUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights