DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant is of the opinion that claimed features improves the ability of the system to authenticate the transaction with neural network that makes a decision as to whether a pending transaction complies with the user security parameter. This new method and system minimize error and increase efficiency. Therefore, claims are directed to eligibility subject matter. Further, claims are similar to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com (Fed. Cir. 2014). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite concepts that are performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations and judgements. In particular, the “evaluating the transaction, analyzing the transaction, determining…whether the transaction is fraudulent or nonfraudulent based on the comparison, and determining…whether to process the pending transaction” limitations characterize comparisons, determinations, and evaluations that may be performed in the human mind. The specification confirms that these concepts may be performed in the human mind, stating that the neural network that performs these steps “is a system of programs and data structures that approximates the operation of the human brain” (Specification page 1 lines 10-11). Accordingly, claim recites concepts performed in the human mind, which fall within the mental processes category of abstract idea.
Further, the claims recite detecting fraud in the credit card transaction by storing information, comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options which is an abstract idea which is grouped within the certain methods of organizing human activities. The claims involve detecting the transaction fraud which is a process that deals with fundamental economic principle and commercial or legal interactions
The additional elements of the claims such as fraud screening transaction system, security parameter system, security parameter management system, graphical user interface, a processor, storage medium, computer, and neural network merely use a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, fraud screening transaction system, security parameter system, security parameter management system, graphical user interface, the processor, storage medium, computer, and neural network perform the steps or functions of providing a system, setting a user security parameter, acquiring the security parameter, learning the pattern, adjusting security parameter, evaluating the transaction, and determining whether to process the transaction and sending a notification. Viewed as a whole, the use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo).
Claims are not in any way similar to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, In the case of DDR Holdings, the claim addresses the problem of retaining Web site visitors from being diverted from a host’s web site to an advertiser’s Web site, for which the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer network". Here, however, the instant claim is directed to abstract idea of detecting fraud in the credit card transaction by storing information, comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options. Unlike the situation in DDR Holdings, Applicant did not identify any problem particular to computer networks and/or the Internet that claim allegedly overcome.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, Applicant is of the opinion that with respect to claim 16, that the applicable statute does not require a specific algorithm or flow chat. The terms are well understood to a person of ordinary skill and supported in the specification. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, cited portion of the specification does not describe any algorithm or flow chart to describe how providing, permitting and improving are performed.
Secondly, MPEP 2161.01(I) state “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing” Therefore, the specification require to disclose algorithm or flowchart that perform the claimed functions.
Further, with respect to claim 16, the cited portion of the specification does not describe the ““providing a fraud screening transaction system…”, “permitting the secondary security system comprising a neural network to learn a pattern of legitimate transactional behavior; adjusting the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time by specifying an action by the user based on the pattern of legitimate transactional behavior” and “improving determination of whether a transaction is fraudulent or non-fraudulent based on the adjusted user security parameter”. The cited portion does not describe these limitations. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to claims 30 and 37, Applicant is of the opinion that page 7 lines 15-page 8 line 2 discloses adjusting the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time by specifying an action by the user based on the pattern of legitimate transactional behavior. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Page 7 lines 15- page 8 line 2 does not disclose adjusting the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time by specifying an action by the user based on the pattern of legitimate transactional behavior. Page 7 lines 15- page 8 line 2 discloses A user may temporarily adjust the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time, such as for the duration of a business trip. It is desirable that the user security parameter be established prior to conducting any transactions. The fraud-prevention system manages financial transactions and account access transactions. The user security parameter can cover transaction characteristics such as, by means of a non- limiting example, geographic locations, monetary value ranges, transaction modes, account access parameters, classes of goods, and classes of services. The cited portion is silent with respect to adjusting is performed based on the pattern of legitimate transactional behavior. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to claim 37, Applicant is of the opinion that amendments overcome the rejection. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim recites “adjustment routine” specification does not describe this limitation. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to 112(b) to claim 37, Applicant did not provide any arguments, therefore, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant is of the opinion that prior art fails to teach “a secondary security system comprising a neural network for receiving an alert to learn a pattern of legitimate transactional behavior, and comporting with adjusted user security parameters, the secondary security system in communication with the user security parameter management system, and the secondary security system in communication with a third party notification system that automatically synchronizes data, collects authorization and transaction information, collects activity patterns and checks usage patterns against predetermined rules and adjusting the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time by specifying an action by the user based on the pattern of legitimate transactional behavior. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Gavan discloses: a secondary security system comprising a neural network for receiving an alert to learn a pattern of legitimate transactional behavior, and, the secondary security system in communication with the user security parameter management system, and the secondary security system in communication with a third party notification system (See paragraph 0008, 0012, 0019, 0085, 0105-0110 and 0244-0255).
With respect to “to comport with adjusted user security parameters” this is intended use languages and it has been held a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in additional steps/functions. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1513 (Fed.Cir. 2001). Additionally, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require a method step to be performed or does not limit the claim to a particular structure ..." "MPEP § 2103 I C states that language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. An example of such language includes statements of intended use or field of use (MPEP §2103 I C).
With respect to “a third-party notification system that automatically synchronizes data, collects authorization and transaction information, collects activity patterns and check usage patterns against predefined rules” these limitations do not have patentable weight because third party notification system is not part of the claimed method, system and instructions. Further, these limitations recite intended use languages and it has been held a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in additional steps/functions. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1513 (Fed.Cir. 2001). Additionally, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require a method step to be performed or does not limit the claim to a particular structure ..." "MPEP § 2103 I C states that language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. An example of such language includes statements of intended use or field of use (MPEP §2103 I C).
Cohen discloses in view of 112(a) rejection: adjusting the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time by specifying an action by the user (See column 7 lines 28-67, column 8 lines 1-57 and column 12 lines 46-67)
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Status of Claims
Claims 16, 18, 21, 30-31, 35, 37-38, 41 and 45-47 have been examined.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 14-15 and 43-44 have been withdrawn by the Applicant.
Claims 3-4, 12-13, 17, 19-20, 22-29, 32-34, 36, 39-40 and 42 have been canceled by the Applicant.
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 16, 18, 21, 30-31, 35, 37-38, 41 and 45-47 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.
In the instant case, claims 16, 18, 21 and 45 are directed to a method, claims 30-31, 35 and 46 are directed to a system and claims 37-38, 41 and 47 are directed to computer readable storage device. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite detecting fraud in the credit card transaction by storing information, comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “providing … having: (1) a user security parameter …; and (2) a secondary security … for receiving an alert to learn a pattern of legitimate transactional behavior, comport with adjusted user security parameters…; setting a user security parameter …; acquiring the security parameter…; allowing a user to select…; permitting… to learn a pattern of legitimate transactional behavior, adjusting the user security parameter…; improving determination of whether a transaction is fraudulent or non-fraudulent…; evaluating the transaction…; analyzing the transaction…; authenticating…; determining …whether the transaction is fraudulent or non-fraudulent based on the comparison; determining whether to process the pending transaction; and sending … notice to the user” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract idea in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve detecting the transaction fraud which is a process that deals with fundamental economic principles and commercial or legal interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106).
Additionally, the steps of method, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite concepts that are performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations and judgements. In particular, the “evaluating the transaction, analyzing the transaction, determining…whether the transaction is fraudulent or nonfraudulent based on the comparison, and determining…whether to process the pending transaction” limitations characterize comparisons, determinations, and evaluations that may be performed in the human mind. The specification confirms that these concepts may be performed in the human mind, stating that the neural network that performs these steps “is a system of programs and data structures that approximates the operation of the human brain” (Specification page 1 lines 10-11). Accordingly, claim recites concepts performed in the human mind, which fall within the mental processes category of abstract idea. Merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract. (See RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1327 (“Adding one abstract idea to another abstract idea... does not render the claim non-abstract.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093— 94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining the pending claims were directed to a combination of abstract ideas)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as fraud screening transaction system, security parameter system, security parameter management system, graphical user interface, a processor, storage medium, computer, authentication system and neural network merely use a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, fraud screening transaction system, security parameter system, security parameter management system, graphical user interface, the processor, storage medium, computer, authentication system and neural network perform the steps or functions of providing a system, setting a user security parameter, acquiring the security parameter, learning the pattern, adjusting security parameter, evaluating the transaction, and determining whether to process the transaction and sending a notification. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of security parameter system, security parameter management system, graphical user interface, storage medium, a processor, computer and neural network to perform the steps/functions amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of detecting fraud in the credit card transaction. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, fraud screening transaction system, security parameter system, security parameter management system, graphical user interface, the processor, storage medium, computer and neural network perform the steps or functions of providing a system, setting a user security parameter, acquiring the security parameter, learning the pattern, adjusting security parameter, evaluating the transaction, and determining whether to process the transaction and sending a notification. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of detecting fraud in the credit card transaction. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of detecting fraud in the credit card transaction by storing information, comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe the abstract idea of detecting fraud in the credit card transaction by storing information, comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16, 18, 21, 30-31, 35, 37-38, 41, 45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites “providing a fraud screening transaction system”; “permitting the secondary security”; “improving determination”. However, specification is silent with respect to any algorithm or flow chart to describe how providing, permitting and improving are performed.
Specification discloses: Transaction system 10 includes a database 120, a transaction processing system 130, and a security center 140. Security center includes a user security parameter system 150 and a secondary security system 160. Transaction system further includes user security parameter management system 170. User security parameter management system includes a customer service center graphical user interface 180, user security parameter module 190, and a user graphical user interface 200. (Publication paragraph 0051) but does not describe any algorithm or flow chart to describe how providing, permitting and improving are performed.
Claim 16 recites “providing a fraud screening transaction system”, “permitting the secondary security system comprising a neural network to learn a pattern of legitimate transactional behavior; adjusting the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time by specifying an action by the user based on the pattern of legitimate transactional behavior” and “improving determination of whether a transaction is fraudulent or non-fraudulent based on the adjusted user security parameter”. Specification does not describe these limitations.
Specification discloses: The fraud-prevention system also includes a computer-readable storage medium containing a set of instructions for a general purpose computer having a user interface. The set of instructions includes a user security parameter selection routine operatively associated with the user interface for permitting a user to set a user security parameter associated with an applications program accessible to the computer (See publication paragraph 0033) but does not describe the limitations above. For the purpose of examination claim interpret as “adjusting the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time by specifying an action by the user”.
Claim 16 recites “based on the authentication, determining with the secondary security system comprising a neural network whether the transaction is fraudulent or non-fraudulent based on the comparison” However, specification does not describe this limitation.
Specification discloses: The fraud-prevention system also distinguishes fraudulent transactions from non-fraudulent transactions by providing an interface capable of setting a user security parameter by a user instruction, comparing a transaction parameter that characterizes a transaction to the user security parameter, and determining whether the transaction is fraudulent or non-fraudulent. (See publication paragraph 0029). However, specification does not describe that determining performed based on authentication. For the purpose of examination claim is interpret as determining with the secondary security system comprising a neural network whether the transaction is fraudulent or non-fraudulent based on the comparison.
Claim 30 recites “adjusting the user security parameter using a processor for a predetermined period of time based on the neural network learning a pattern of legitimate transactional behavior” specification does not describe this limitation.
Specification discloses: A user may temporarily adjust the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time, such as for the duration of a business trip. (See paragraph 0008) but does not recite adjusting is performed based on the pattern of legitimate transactional behavior. For the purpose of examination claim is interpret as adjusting the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time by specifying an action by the user.
Claim 30 recites “authenticating the transaction with the neural network that based on the authentication makes a decision as to whether a pending transaction compiles with the adjusted user security parameter”. However, specification does not describe this limitation.
Specification discloses: The fraud-prevention system also distinguishes fraudulent transactions from non-fraudulent transactions by providing an interface capable of setting a user security parameter by a user instruction, comparing a transaction parameter that characterizes a transaction to the user security parameter, and determining whether the transaction is fraudulent or non-fraudulent. (See publication paragraph 0029). However, specification does not describe that determining performed based on authentication. For the purpose of examination claim is interpret as determining with the secondary security system comprising a neural network whether the transaction is fraudulent or non-fraudulent based on the comparison.
Claim 37 recites “adjusting the user security parameter using a processor for a predetermined period of time based on the neural network learning a pattern of legitimate transactional behavior” specification does not describe this limitation.
Specification discloses: A user may temporarily adjust the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time, such as for the duration of a business trip. (See paragraph 0008) but does not recite the adjusting is performed based on the pattern of legitimate transactional behavior. For the purpose of examination claim is interpret as adjusting the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time by specifying an action by the user.
Claim 37 recites “instructions comprising: “an adjustment routine….”. However, specification does not describe this limitation.
Specification discloses: The set of instructions includes a user security parameter selection routine operatively associated with the user interface for permitting a user to set a user security parameter associated with an applications program accessible to the computer. The set of instructions further includes a transaction routine for receiving a pending transaction, the pending transaction characterized by a transaction parameter. In addition, the set of instructions includes a parameter comparison routine responsive to the transaction routine for comparing the transaction parameter to the user security parameter, the transaction routine for determining whether to process the pending transaction based upon the comparison by said parameter comparison routine (See publication paragraph 0033) but does not describe instructions comprising: “an adjustment routine….”.
Claim 37 recites “an authentication system in communication with a card security settings management module that based on the authentication makes a decision as to whether a pending transaction compiles with the adjusted user security parameter”. However, specification does not describe this limitation.
Specification discloses: Debit card security settings module is in communication with card security settings management module 310 that manages the security settings of a card. Module stores data in settings database 320. Card security settings management module is in communication with an authentication system 330, such as neural network having fraud detection rules. Settings database is in communication with card alert management system 340 that sends warnings or alters to user when a pending transaction request has certain parameters that fail to meet the specified user security parameters. Settings database is also in communication with a debit card management system 350 (See publication paragraph 0064). However, specification does not describe that making decision based on authentication. For the purpose of examination claim is interpret as determining with the secondary security system comprising a neural network whether the transaction is fraudulent or non-fraudulent based on the comparison.
Claim 37 recites “an authentication system” claim also recite a distinct element i.e. a neural network. However, specification does not recite these two elements as two different elements.
Specification discloses: Security system communicates with an authentication system, such as a neural network, which is operatively in communication with transaction processing system, in step 390, in order to provide real time updates of information to the authentication system. (See publication paragraph 0066). However, specification does not recite these two elements as two different elements
Claims 18, 21, 31, 35, 38, 41, 45 and 47 are also rejected as each depends from claims 16, 30 and 37 respectively.
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 37-38, 41 and 47 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 37 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable storage device containing…instructions, the set of instructions comprising: a user security parameter selection routine…; a secondary security routine…”, “a transaction routine…”, “a parameter comparison routine…”, “an adjustment routine…”, “an authentication routine…” and “a user notification routine…” The claim is unclear to one of the ordinary skill in the art because it is unclear if the instructions functionally related to claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage device. Further instructions are not executed by any processor or device therefore, these instructions are only stored and not functionally related to claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage device. (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989), MPEP 2173.02 (III)(B)).
Claims 38, 41, and 47 are also rejected as each depends from claim 37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16,18, 21, 30-31, 35, 37-38, 41 and 45-47 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blonder (US 5708422) in view of Cohen (US 6422462) in further view of Gavan (US 20040111305).
With respect to claims 16, 30 and 37 Blonder discloses:
setting a user security parameter by a user security parameter management module through a user instruction before processing any transaction (See column 6 lines 13-49);
acquiring the security parameter from the user and storing it in a user security parameter database; allowing a user to select a security parameter (See column 6 lines 13-49);
evaluating the transaction by a user security parameter system by comparing the user security parameter to a transaction parameter associated with a pending transaction at a user security parameter (See column 12 lines 26-32 and see claim 49);
determining with system whether to process the pending transaction (See column 12 lines 30-32);
sending an electronic notice/alert to the user that sends warning or alerts to user when a pending transaction request has certain parameters that fail to meet the specified user security parameters (See column 6 lines 50-54);
Blonder does not explicitly disclose: providing a transaction system having: a user security parameter system and user security parameter management system the user security parameter module and a graphical user interface and a computer-readable storage medium containing a set of instructions for a user security parameter selection routine operatively associated with the graphical user interface for permitting a user to set a user security parameter associated with an applications program accessible to the computer ; a secondary security system in communication with a transaction processing system and for receiving an alert to learn a pattern of legitimate transactional behavior, the secondary security system in communication with the user security parameter management system; analyzing the transaction parameter with a neural network designed to comport with adjusted user security parameter; permitting the secondary security system to learn a pattern of legitimate transactional behavior; adjusting the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time by specifying an action by the user; improving determination of whether a transaction is fraudulent or non-fraudulent based on the adjusted user security parameter; evaluating the transaction by a user security parameter system by comparing the adjusted user security parameter to a transaction parameter associated with a pending transaction at a user security parameter module.
Cohen disclose: providing a transaction system having: a user security parameter system and a user security parameter management system, the user security parameter management system having: user security parameter module and a graphical user interface, and a computer-readable storage medium containing a set of instructions for a user security parameter selection routine operatively associated with the graphical user interface for permitting a user to set a user security parameter associated with an applications program accessible to the computer; adjusting the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time by specifying an action by the user; improving determination of whether a transaction is fraudulent or non-fraudulent based on the adjusted user security parameter; evaluating the transaction by a user security parameter system by comparing the adjusted user security parameter to a transaction parameter associated with a pending transaction at a user security parameter module; determining at the user security parameter module whether the transaction is fraudulent or non-fraudulent based on the comparison (See column 7 lines 28-67, column 8 lines 1-57 and column 12 lines 46-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to combine the Blonder reference with the Cohen in order to minimize credit card fraud.
Blonder in view of Cohen does not explicitly disclose: a secondary security system in communication with a transaction processing system and the user security parameter management system; permitting the secondary security system to learn a pattern of legitimate transactional behavior; wherein the secondary security system is a neural network; analyzing the transaction parameter with the neural network designed to comport with adjusted user security parameter.
Gavan discloses: a secondary security system comprising a neural network in communication with a transaction processing system and the user security parameter management system; receiving an alert to learn a pattern of legitimate transactional behavior the secondary security system based on a neural network; permitting the secondary security system to learn a pattern of legitimate transactional behavior; wherein the secondary security system is a neural network; analyzing the transaction parameter with the neural network designed to comport with adjusted user security parameter based on the pattern of legitimate transactional behavior; the secondary security system in communication with a third party notification system. (See paragraph 0008, 0012, 0019, 0085, 0105-0110 and 0244-0255). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time invention was made to modify the combination of Blonder and Cohen references with the Gavan reference in order to detect fraudulent use of customer account.
With respect to “to comport with adjusted user security parameters, for analyzing the transaction parameter” and “to allow the neural network to learn a legitimate pattern of behavior” this is intended use languages and it has been held a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in additional steps/functions. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1513 (Fed.Cir. 2001). Additionally, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require a method step to be performed or does not limit the claim to a particular structure ..." "MPEP § 2103 I C states that language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. An example of such language includes statements of intended use or field of use (MPEP §2103 I C).
With respect to “a third-party notification system that automatically synchronizes data, collects authorization and transaction information, collects activity patterns and check usage patterns against predefined rules” these limitations do not have patentable weight because third party notification system is not part of the claimed method, system and instructions. Further, these limitations recite intended use languages and it has been held a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in additional steps/functions. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1513 (Fed.Cir. 2001). Additionally, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require a method step to be performed or does not limit the claim to a particular structure ..." "MPEP § 2103 I C states that language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. An example of such language includes statements of intended use or field of use (MPEP §2103 I C).
With respect to claims 18, 31 and 38 Blonder in view of Cohen and in further view of Gavan discloses all the limitations as described above. Blonder further discloses: wherein the user security parameter is a geographic location, a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, or a class of services. (See column 6, lines 14-50).
With respect to claim 21 Blonder in view of Cohen and in further view of Gavan discloses all the limitations as described above. Blonder further discloses: selecting a security parameter in which to allow transactions, to block transactions, or to send a notice to the user. (See column 6, lines 8-50).
With respect to claims 35, 41, Blonder in view of Cohen and in further view of Gavan discloses all the limitations as described above. Cohen further discloses: wherein the security parameter is temporarily adjustable for preset period of time (See column 7, lines 28-67; column 8, lines 1-67 and column 12, lines 46-67).
With respect to claim 45, Blonder in view of Cohen and in further view of Gavan discloses all the limitations as described above. Cohen further discloses: modifying the user security parameter for a second predetermined period of time (See column 7, lines 53-65).
With respect to claims 46-47, Blonder in view of Cohen and in further view of Gavan discloses all the limitations as described above. Cohen further discloses: modifying the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time by user instruction; modifying routine operatively associated with the graphical user interface for permitting a user to modify the user security parameter for a predetermined period of time (See column 7, lines 28-67; column 8, lines 1-67 and column 12, lines 46-67).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM 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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697