DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant filed the amendment on 10/20/2025. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 11-12, 14-22, and 24-26 are pending. Claims 1, 14-15, 18, and 22 are amended. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 11-12, 14-22, and 24-26 are rejected. After careful consideration of applicant arguments, the examiner finds them to be not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
3. Rejections of claims 1, 3-4, 7, 11-12, 14-22, and 24-26 due to amendments to claims 1, 15, and 18 are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
4. The applicant is of the opinion that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, but provides no reasonable arguments to support this view.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims as a whole directed to determining whether a transaction is a fraud risk and upon the determination authorizing or declining a transaction which is grouped under organizing human activity is similar to fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions.
5. Applicant is of the opinion that the amended claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant states that amended claims elements such as “determining … in real time as the transaction is occurring at the POS terminal, that the first fraud risk value does not exceed a first threshold value; determining… in real time as the transaction is occurring at the POS terminal, that the first fraud risk value exceeds a second threshold value, wherein the second threshold value is lower than the first threshold value; and analyzing … the transaction information, wherein the transaction occurring at the POS terminal is neither authorized nor declined based on the first fraud risk value exceeding the second threshold value and based on the first fraud risk value not exceeding the first threshold value” that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The purported improvements are improvements in ineligible subject matter, i.e., sales methods. Here, the additional elements recited by the claims generally link the use of the abstract idea (e.g., “receiving, determining, and analyzing information”), even if it is conceivably an improved abstract idea, to a particular technological environment or field of use; and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform 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)).
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.
6. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 11-12, 14-22, and 24-26 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.
9. In the instant case, claims 1, 15, and 18 are directed to a “method, system, and a non-transitory computer readable medium for providing secure transaction based on different margins”.
10. Claim 1 recites “determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk”. Specifically, claim 1 recites “generating …; transmitting…; receiving… one or more user interactions … wherein the one or more user interactions includes input inventory information…; writing … the input inventory information … wherein the input inventory information written… includes data items associated with at least one item, the data items including an identifier of the at least one item, a category of the at least one item, an average cost of the at least one item, and average price of the at least one item, one or more of a high priority indicator and a high fraud risk indicator associated with the at least one item, and a weighting factor of the at least one item; receiving … transaction information associated with the transaction occurring …; determining… that the transaction information includes the identifier of the at least one item; selecting… a set of one or more of the data items associated with the at least one item according to the transaction information associated with the transaction occurring …; determining … a margin value for the at least one item using the set of the one or more of the data items associated with the at least one item; determining … a first fraud risk value associated with the transaction based on the margin value; determining … as the transaction is occurring … that the first fraud risk value does not exceed a first threshold value; determining … as the transaction is occurring … that the first fraud risk value exceeds a second threshold value, wherein the second threshold value is lower than the first threshold value; and analyzing … the transaction information, wherein the transaction occurring … is neither authorized nor declined based on the first fraud risk value exceeding the second threshold value and based on the first fraud risk value not exceeding the first threshold value”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., fundamental economic practice and commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
11. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claim 1 such as “generating, by a web server of the service provider, one or more interactive user interface elements in a graphical user interface”, “transmitting, by a processor of the computing system of the service provider, the graphical user interface to a user device associated with a merchant system”, “writing, by the processor of the computing system of the service provider, the input inventory information to a database”, “a point of sale (POS) terminal”, “selecting, by the processor of the computing system of the service provider, a set of one or more of the data items associated with the at least one item according to the transaction information associated with the transaction occurring at the POS terminal”, “determining, by the processor of the computing system of the service provider and in real time as the transaction is occurring at the POS terminal, that the first fraud risk value does not exceed a first threshold value”, “determining, by the processor of the computing system of the service provider and in real time as the transaction is occurring at the POS terminal, that the first fraud risk value exceeds a second threshold value”, and “analyzing, by the processor of the computing system of the service provider, the transaction information, wherein the transaction occurring at the POS terminal is neither authorized nor declined based on the first fraud risk value exceeding the second threshold value and based on the first fraud risk value not exceeding the first threshold value” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. With respect to “determining … in real time as the transaction is occurring at the POS terminal…”, the claim lacks details regarding what “determining that the first fraud risk value in real time of occurring the transaction” comprise. Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “determining” is performed nor described how the function is accomplished, the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate) the acts of determining whether the purchase transaction is a fraud risk (“… the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome…”, MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). With respect to “transmitting … the graphical user interface…”, “receiving… one or more user interactions…”, “writing … the input inventory information…”, and “receiving … transaction information …” is simply transmitting data “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
12. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk using computer technology (e.g., the processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
13. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
14. Claims 15 and 18 also recite “determining whether the purchase transaction is a fraud risk”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., fundamental economic practice and commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
15. As in the case of claim 1, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claims 15 and 18 such as “a web server”, “a memory”, “a processor”, “a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “generating, by a web server of the service provider, one or more interactive user interface elements in a graphical user interface”, “transmitting, by the processor, the graphical user interface to a user device associated with a merchant system”, “writing, by the processor, the input inventory information to a database”, “a point of sale (POS) terminal”, “selecting, by the processor, a set of one or more of the data items associated with the at least one item according to the transaction information associated with the transaction occurring at the POS terminal”, “determining, by the processor and in real time as the transaction is occurring at the POS terminal, that the first fraud risk value does not exceed a first threshold value”, “determining, by the processor and in real time as the transaction is occurring at the POS terminal, that the first fraud risk value exceeds a second threshold value”, and “analyzing, by the processor, the transaction information, wherein the transaction occurring at the POS terminal is neither authorized nor declined based on determining that the first fraud risk value exceeds the second threshold value” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. With respect to “determining … in real time as the transaction is occurring at the POS terminal…”, the claim lacks details regarding what “determining that the first fraud risk value in real time of occurring the transaction” comprise. Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “determining” is performed nor described how the function is accomplished, the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e., automate) the acts of determining whether the purchase transaction is a fraud risk (“… the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome…”, MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). With respect to “transmitting … the graphical user interface…”, “receiving… one or more user interactions…”, “writing … the input inventory information…”, and “receiving … transaction information …” is simply transmitting data “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
16. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk using computer technology (e.g., the processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
17. Hence, claims 15 and 18 are not patent eligible.
18. Dependent claim 3 further describes the abstract idea of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk as recites “wherein the at least one item is associated with merchant-provided data, and wherein at least one of a price, cost, shipping information, or a fraud risk flag is associated with the merchant-provided data”.
Dependent claim 4 further describes the abstract idea of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk as recites “wherein the input inventory information includes merchant-provided category data, and wherein at least one of a price, cost, shipping information, or a fraud risk flag is associated with the merchant-provided category data”.
Dependent claim 7 further describes the abstract idea of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk as recites “wherein determining the margin value includes a calculation of shipping costs”.
Dependent claims 11 and 19 further describe the abstract idea of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk, as each recites “determining … a second fraud risk value associated with the transaction based on at least one of stock unit level data or category-level data; and comparing … the second fraud risk value to a third threshold value”. The additional element such as “the processor of the computing system of the service provider” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claims 12, 17, and 20 further describe the abstract idea of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk, as each recites “wherein the first fraud risk value is equal to the second fraud risk value”.
Dependent claim 14 further describes the abstract idea of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk as recites “wherein an authorization response message is transmitted … as the transaction is occurring … based on determining that the first fraud risk value does not exceed the second threshold value”. The additional elements such as “in real-time” and “the POS terminal” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 16 further describes the abstract idea of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk as recites “wherein the operations further comprise: determining … a second fraud risk value associated with the transaction based on at least one of stock unit level data or category-level data; and comparing … the second fraud risk value to a third threshold value”. The additional element such as “the processor” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 21 further describes the abstract idea of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk as recites “determining … that merchant-level data associated with the transaction information exists in the input inventory information; and determining … a third margin value associated with the merchant-level data”. The additional element such as “the processor of the computing system of the service provider” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 22 further describes the abstract idea of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk as recites “wherein an authorization response message is a decline message based on the first fraud value not exceeding the first threshold value”.
Dependent claim 24 further describes the abstract idea of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk as recites “determining … that the first fraud risk value exceeds the first threshold value, determining … that one or more flags are associated with the transaction; comparing … the first fraud risk value to the second threshold value; and authorizing … the transaction upon determining the first fraud risk value exceeds the second threshold value”. The additional element such as “the processor of the computing system of the service provider” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 25 further describes the abstract idea of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk as recites “determining … that one or more flags are associated with the transaction; applying … a weighting factor to the one or more flags; and recalculating … the first fraud risk value based on the one or more flags”. The additional element such as “the processor of the computing system of the service provider” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 26 further describes the abstract idea of determining whether a purchase transaction is a fraud risk as recites “calculating … an item-level margin associated with the transaction information, wherein the item-level margin is calculated for at least one item in the transaction; calculating … a second fraud risk value based on the item-level margin; comparing … the second fraud risk value to the second threshold value, wherein a transaction-level margin is calculated upon determining the calculated second fraud risk value exceeds the second threshold value; calculating … a third fraud risk value based on the transaction-level margin; and comparing … the third fraud risk value to a third threshold value, wherein the transaction is authorized upon determining the third fraud risk value exceeds the third threshold value”. The additional element such as “the processor of the computing system of the service provider” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Conclusion
19. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
20. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Conclusion
21. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20080046334A1 – Lee et al. – Discloses methods and systems for online transactions at merchant sites that determines the likelihood that such transactions are fraudulent, accounting for unreliable fields of a transaction order, which fields do not reliably identify a purchaser.
US20110208560A1 – Najmi et al. – Discloses a system and method for estimating demand of a supply chain including accessing a probability distribution of order lead time of the supply chain.
US20160203429A1 – Mellott et al. – Discloses a system for receiving and providing retail store product inventory data, rate of sale data, and incoming product inventory data in real time and generating and prioritizing restocking workflow activities as a function of the received data.
22. 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.
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANULLA ABDULLAEV whose telephone number is (571)272-4367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM -4:30PM ET.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/AMANULLA ABDULLAEV/ Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692