DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/8/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims filed 10/8/2025 have been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 15-16, and18 are currently amended.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are previously presented.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19 are original.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/8/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections
Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 of the eligibility framework. More specifically, Applicant argues that the additional elements reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field in that they provide a specific algorithm which improves how computer systems process and organize high-volume transaction data across a payment network, enabling accurate fraud detection (see Remarks, pp. 15-16).
Claim 1 has been amended to include:
determininq, by the processor, whether the qroup of transactions exceed a predefined threshold of a potentially fraudulent activity, wherein the predefined threshold is based on a count of one or more unique account numbers, one or more unique billinq addresses, or one or more unique phone numbers;
filterinq, by the processor, one or more transactions with known leqitimate parameters from the qroup of transactions identified as potentially fraudulent, wherein the known leqitimate parameters include transactions associated with one or more predefined transaction patterns or exceptions;
Applicant’s argument that the claims recite an improvement in the technical field of transaction processing is not persuasive. The specification, including paragraphs [021] and [032], does not describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus the specification does not support a technical improvement. The claims themselves are also not indicative of a technical improvement. Here, almost the entirety of representative claim 1 limitations, including the amended limitations, fall under the abstract idea which is independently abstract. The fact that that the claimed processor is being used to implement a specific abstract idea does not render a technological improvement - “… a claim is not patent eligible merely because it applies an abstract idea in a narrow way” (BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., Fed. Cir. 2018); “a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” (Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, Fed. Cir. 2014).
The amended limitations fall within the abstract idea itself because they merely further describe the previously identified abstract idea. Here, the claims conceivably provide an improvement to an abstract idea itself. However, an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106 .05(a)). The amended limitations do not change the outcome of the analysis because the computer is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, i.e. merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Here, the additional element of using a computer to perform the abstract idea, including analyzing and reportingf fraudulent transactions, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Each step is a generic computer function used to implement the abstract idea pertaining to transaction analysis for fraud detection. Thus, Examiner is unpersuaded that the limitations provide a technical improvement and is thus unpersuaded that the limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 of the eligibility framework.
Applicant further argues that the claims should be found eligible in view of Enfish because the current claims improve how a computer system processes and organizes transaction data across a plurality of merchants in a payment network, enhancing accuracy and efficiency in fraud detection (see Remarks, pp. 17-18).
The argument is not persuasive. The claimed invention is distinguishable from Enfish, where the claimed self-referential table improved how a computer stored and retrieved data and enhanced the operation of the computer. In contrast, the instant claims merely employ generic computing tools to analyze data, without changing how the computer operates. Here, Applicant’s improvement does not stem from an improvement in the underlying technology, such as databases, but instead is a result of performing a different analysis on data to detect fraud. As discussed above, an improvement in the abstract idea itself, e.g. transaction analysis, is not an improvement in technology. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to a technological improvement.
Applicant further argues that the claims should be found eligible in view of Amdocs because the current claims improve how a computer system processes and organizes transaction data across a plurality of merchants in a payment network, enhancing accuracy and efficiency in fraud detection (see Remarks, pp. 17-18).
The argument is not persuasive. The manner in which Amdocs enhances data differs from that of Applicant’s invention. In Amdocs, the patent specification asserts that the invention arrays the components of the system "in a distributed architecture that minimizes the impact on network and system resources," which is accomplished "by collecting and processing data close to its source." That result is the effect of including "distributed data gathering, filtering, and enhancements that enable load distribution," instead of performing those tasks centrally as prior art devices did, and thus "reducing congestion in network bottlenecks, while still allowing data to be accessible from a central location." This differs in from Applicant’s invention in that it is an improvement in the distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating networking accounting data records. Here, the Amdocs invention, compared to the prior art, changes where data is processed and does so in an unconventional manner. In contrast, Applicant’s improvement does not stem from an improvement in distributed network architecture, but instead is a result of performing a different analysis on data to detect fraud. As discussed above, an improvement in the abstract idea itself, e.g. transaction analysis, is not an improvement in technology.
Applicant further argues that the claims are different than those found ineligible in Bozeman Financial (see Remarks, pp. 16-17).
The argument is not persuasive. The claims at issue similarly involve detection of fraud by analyzing transaction information. As discussed above, the fact that that the claimed processor is being used to implement a specific abstract idea, i.e. a specific way of analyzing transaction information, does not render a technological improvement - “… a claim is not patent eligible merely because it applies an abstract idea in a narrow way” (BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., Fed. Cir. 2018); “a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” (Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, Fed. Cir. 2014).
Thus, Applicant’s argument with regards to representative claim 1 is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s argument with regards to independent claims 8 and 15 and dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 are not persuasive because they rely upon the arguments presented with regards to claim 1 addressed above.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are directed to a method (process), system (machine), or product (manufacture), and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 8 and independent product claim 15. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
1. A [computer-implemented] method comprising:
intercepting, [by a processor], authorization requests [sent across a payment network] for a plurality of transactions involving a plurality of merchants or other organizations, wherein [the processor] accesses [a database storing hashed] identifiers associated with one or more users of the plurality of transactions;
assigning, [by the processor], a unique transaction identifier to each transaction among the plurality of payment transactions, each unique transaction identifier being unique among the identifiers assigned to the plurality of transactions and uniquely identifying the transaction to which it is assigned;
sorting, [by the processor], the plurality of transactions into a first plurality of groups of transactions by a first sorting parameter, each transaction within each group of transactions among the first plurality of groups of transactions having the same value for the first sorting parameter;
assigning, [by the processor], the unique transaction identifier of a first respective transaction within each group of transactions among the first plurality of groups of transactions to all other transactions within the respective group of transactions among the first plurality of groups of transactions;
sorting, [by the processor], the plurality of transactions into a second plurality of groups of transactions by a second sorting parameter, each transaction within each group of transactions among the second plurality of groups of transactions having the same value for the second sorting parameter;
assigning, [by the processor], the unique transaction identifier of a second respective transaction within each group of transactions among the second plurality of groups of transactions to all other transactions within the respective group of transactions among the second plurality of groups of transactions;
24Attorney Docket No.: 00134-0142-00000determining, [by the processor], that a convergence criterion is met based on no transactions changing a previously-assigned identifier over a predefined number of iterations, wherein the iterations include repeatedly sorting and assigning the unique transaction identifier based on predefined criteria until the previously-assigned identifier remains unchanged;
determining, [by the processor], whether the group of transactions exceed a predefined threshold of a potentially fraudulent activity, wherein the predefined threshold is based on a count of one or more unique account numbers, one or more unique billing addresses, or one or more unique phone numbers;
filtering, [by the processor], one or more transactions with known legitimate parameters from the group of transactions identified as potentially fraudulent, wherein the known legitimate parameters include transactions associated with one or more predefined transaction patterns or exceptions;
determining, [by the processor], whether each group of transactions among the second plurality of groups of transactions is a sequence of fraudulent transactions based on (i) determining whether the convergence criterion is met and (ii) one or more features including a transaction frequency metric, a distribution of transaction value, a temporal or structural pattern of modifications to transaction parameters, or an indicator of missing transaction parameter;
upon determining that a group of transactions among the second plurality of groups of transactions is a sequence of fraudulent transactions, denying, [by the processor], respective authorization requests for each transaction among the determined group of transactions from among the authorization requests [sent across the payment network]; and
transmitting electronic reports that respectively report transactions associated with the respective denied authorization requests to respective holders of payment accounts associated with the respective transactions.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated above pertain to transaction analysis for purposes of fraud prevention, which is a fundamental economic practice (including mitigating risk). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: computer-implemented (preamble); processor; “sent across a payment network”; transmitting “electronic” reports
Claim 8: data storage device, processor, “sent across a payment network”; transmitting “electronic” reports
Claim 15: non-transitory machine-readable medium, computing system, “sent across a payment network”; transmitting “electronic” reports
The computer hardware/software 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. MPEP 2106.05(f). The computer hardware/software is also recited in a manner which generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 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)
Step 2B
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. [0022-0023] 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. Additionally 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 generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.05(h) This also cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. 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 dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Edkin (US 2019/0378050 A1) discloses machine learning models, semantic networks, adaptive systems, artificial neural networks, convolutional neural networks, and other forms of knowledge processing systems. An ensemble machine learning system is coupled to a graph module storing a graph structure, wherein a collection of entities and the relationships between those entities forms nodes and connection arcs between the various nodes. A hotfile module and hotfile propagation engine coordinate with the graph module or may be subsumed within the graph module, and implement the various hot file functionality generated by the machine learning system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693