CTFR 17/432,989 CTFR 84048 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the amendment filed 5/4/2026. Applicant has amended claims 1, 8, 15 and cancelled claims 5, 12 and 19. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are pending for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 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. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of “performing transaction risk assessment comprising generating score using mathematical model and modifying to reduce likelihood of false negative mismatch”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices” (managing financial information or transactions; mitigating risk), “Mathematical Concepts (mathematical calculations; mathematical relationships) and “Mental Processes” (observation, evaluation and judgement). (MPEP 2016.04(a)). Specifically, claim 1 recites “receiving … of a scoring…a first data string in a first transaction request and a second data string from a second transaction request, the first transaction request and the second transaction request being associated with a first user and the first data string and the second data string received via a ….from a transaction processing… during processing of at least one of the first transaction request or the second transaction request at the transaction processing…”, “during processing of at least one of the first transaction request or the second transaction request at the transaction processing … for at least one payment by the first user”, “modifying… the first data string and the second data string using position-based optimizations to reduce a likelihood of false negative mismatch between the first data string and the second data string”, “determining …. Of the scoring…that a leading pair of characters of the first data string does not match a leading pair of characters of the second data string”, “in response to determining that the leading pair of characters of the first data string does not match the leading pair of characters of the second data string, inserting … of the scoring…a placeholder character at a first-index position in the first data string and at a first-index position in the second data string, wherein placeholder characters are not present elsewhere in the first data string or the second data string”, “determine…of the scoring… at least one character pair of the first data string in which a first character of the at least one data pair matches a character of the second data string at a same index position as the first character and in which ha second character of the at least one character pair matches a character of the second data string at an index position immediately following a same index position of the second character”, “inserting … of the scoring… a placeholder character between each character pair of the at least one character pair”, “determining …of the scoring… whether a length of the first data string or a length of the second data string is less than a predetermined n-gram length”,” and “in response to determining that the length of the first data string or the length of the second data string is less than the predetermined n- gram length, generating … of the scoring…a similarity score based on a number of matching character pairs at same indexes in the first data string and the second data string in relation to the total number of character pairs or in response to determining that the length of the first data string and the length of the second data string are greater than or equal to the predetermined n-gram length, generating …of the scoring… the similarity score based on an n-gram distance scoring model to compare the first data string and the second data string”, “in response to the similarity score exceeding a predetermined threshold: indicative of a likely match between the first data string and the second data string”, “identifying … of the scoring…a fraudulent transaction comprising at ones one of the first transaction request or the second transaction request”, “…. of the fraudulent transaction during processing of the fraudulent transaction at the transaction processing ….” and “updating …of the monitoring system… a backlist of users to include the first user to produce an updated blacklist, wherein the transaction processing …to deny authorization of future transaction requests of users on the updated blacklist”, “subsequent to the processing of at least one of the first transaction request or the second transaction request….: receiving…. of the transaction processing… third transaction request associated with the first user and denying…of the transaction processing…and based on the updated blacklist…. processing...authorization of the third transaction request during processing of the third transaction request….”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claim 1 such as “with at least one processor…of a… server”, “via communication interface”, “at the transaction processing server” and “preventing, with at least one processor, authorization …” 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 technological environment or field of use. With respect to “preventing…”, the claim lacks detail regarding what “preventing” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) and do not provide a practical application. Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “preventing” is performed nor describe how the functions are 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)). When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than 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, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible. Claim 8 is also directed to the abstract idea of “performing transaction risk assessment comprising generating score using mathematical model and modifying to reduce likelihood of false negative mismatch”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices” (managing financial information or transactions; mitigating risk), “Mathematical Concepts (mathematical calculations; mathematical relationships) and “Mental Processes” (observation, evaluation and judgement). (MPEP 2016.04(a)). As in the case of claim 1, the exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 includes the additional elements such as “system comprising… server including at least one processor and a monitoring system in communication with the …server programmed or configured to…”, “at the transaction processing server” and “preventing…authorization …” 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 technological environment or field of use. With respect to “preventing…”, the claim lacks detail regarding what “preventing” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) and do not provide a practical application. Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “preventing” is performed nor describe how the functions are 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)). When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than 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, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)). Hence, claim 8 is not patent eligible. Claim 15 is also directed to the abstract idea of ““performing transaction risk assessment comprising generating score using mathematical model and modifying to reduce likelihood of false negative mismatch”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices” (managing financial information or transactions; mitigating risk),“Mathematical Concepts (mathematical calculations; mathematical relationships) and “Mental Processes” (observation, evaluation, judgment). (MPEP 2016.04(a)). As in the case of claim 1, the exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 includes the additional elements such as “computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer readable medium including program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to…”,”server”, “at the transaction processing server”, and “preventing…authorization …” 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 technological environment or field of use. With respect to “preventing…”, the claim lacks detail regarding what “preventing” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) and do not provide a practical application. Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “preventing” is performed nor describe how the functions are 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)). When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than 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, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)). Hence, claim 15 is not patent eligible. Depending claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20 further recite “modifying…. at least one of the first transaction request or the second transaction request so that the first data string and the second data string are a same data string (claims 2, 9, 16), “updating... a whitelist of users, wherein…to authorize future transaction requests of users on the whitelist (claims 3, 10, 17), “monitoring (system)… (claims 4, 11, 16, 17,18), “wherein first data string comprises a set of character sequences and the second data string comprises a second set of character sequences…generating…a combined similarity score of the first set of character sequences compared to the second set of character sequences, the combined similarity score based on: a weighted probability score comprising a summed plurality of probability score divided by a number of character sequences in the first set of character sequences, wherein each of the plurality of probability scores represents a probability that a character sequence in the first set of character sequences exists in the second set of character sequences and a penalty value assessed for each character sequence in the second set of character sequences that does not exist in the first set of character sequences; wherein each probability score of the plurality of probability scores is based on an n-gram distance model (claims 6, 13, 20)” and “…a remedial process for at least one of the transaction request or the second transaction request in response to the combined similarity score exceeding a predetermined threshold (claims 7, 14)”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices” (managing financial information or transactions; mitigating risk),“Mathematical Concepts (mathematical calculations; mathematical relationships) and “Mental Processes” (observation, evaluation, judgment). (MPEP 2016.04(a)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20, such as “monitoring system” (claims 2, 3, 8, 14, 18), “compliance system” (claims 2, 3, 8, 10), “server” (claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 11), “fraud system” (claims 3, 11, 18), “at least one processor” (claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 20) and “triggering, by a monitoring system, a remedial process…” (claims 7, 14) and “trigger…compliance system to update..” (claim 17) 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 “triggering”, the claims lack detail regarding what “triggering” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) and do not provide a practical application. Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “triggering” is performed nor describe how the functions are 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)). When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than 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, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)). Hence, depending claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20 are not patent eligible. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 have been searched and reviewed. No prior art has been found that discloses, either expressly or inherently, all of the limitations of the claimed invention. Even though Singh et al. (US 2018/0308003 A1 discloses string matching and generating similarity score, it is not directed to preventing fraudulent transaction based on n-gram distance scoring model. There is no teaching, suggesting, or motivation that would have led one or ordinary skill in the art to modify or combine the references in the manner claimed to include all the limitations in the independent claims. Therefore, no rejection under 102/103 is made. Related But Not Relied Upon Relevant prior art cited but not applied: Duke et al US 2015/0161611 A1, directed to processing fraud score using similarity score. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 5/ 4/2026 ha ve been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 1) similar to Enfish, the amended claims improve a field of technology 2) the claims improves upon conventional string comparison methods by introducing placeholder insertions 3) according to paragraphs 0097 and 0090 of the specification, false negatives are reduced, which reduces subsequent processing time and memory and reduces overall computer processing demand the system 4) Similar to McRO, the claims enable computers to more accurately and efficiently compare data strings in real time which represents and improvement in computer processing itself 5) distilling Example 47 into a question of “network security” is an inappropriate reduction because Example 47 is a guideline not an example of how network security alone may reserve as a practical application 6) the claims elements are not routine, conventional or well-understood 5) the interaction of the threshold-triggered steps with preceding timing based language has not been fully considered in examination. The Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that the claims are similar to Enfish, it is noted that in Enfish, the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one was applied because the claims focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36; see Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data, but merely use computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of field of use. In response to applicant’s argument that the claims introduce placeholder insertions, it is noted that inserting “with at least one processor” 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 technological environment or field of use. In response to applicant’s argument that false negatives are reduced which reduces subsequent processing time and memory, it is noted that this limitation is not recited in the claims. The claims lack detail regarding how it is done (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) and do not provide a practical application. In response to applicant’s argument that the claims are similar to McRO, it is noted that unlike McRO where specific rule application produces a particular technological result (automatic animation generation), applicant’s claims merely improve an abstract data-processing concept, not computer functionality. In response to applicant’s argument that distilling Example 47 into a question of “network security” is an inappropriate reduction, it is noted that merely invoking a technological environment does not render an abstract idea patent eligible. Unlike Claim 3 of Example 47 where details the application of an artificial neural network are recited to detect malicious network packets by dropping packets in real-time and blocking future traffic, applicant’s claims are not directed to concrete network/computer improvement. In response to applicant’s argument the claims are not well-understood, routine or conventional, applicant is reminded that if an examiner had previously concluded under Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity they should reevaluate such conclusion in Step B (please see at least MPEP 2106.05 (g)) and if such reevaluation indicates that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that an inventive concept is present. In this case, since the examiner has not concluded under Step 2A that any element is “insignificant extra-solution activity”, no reevaluation of whether the elements are “routine and conventional” is needed. In response to applicant’s argument that the interaction of the threshold-triggered steps with preceding timing-based language has not been fully considered in examination, the examiner disagrees. All the limitations recited in the claims have been fully considered, please see detailed 101 rejections above. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIA-YI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9-8 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, RYAN 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. /CHIA-YI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 Application/Control Number: 17/432,989 Page 2 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 17/432,989 Page 3 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 17/432,989 Page 4 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 17/432,989 Page 5 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 17/432,989 Page 7 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 17/432,989 Page 9 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 17/432,989 Page 10 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 17/432,989 Page 11 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 17/432,989 Page 12 Art Unit: 3692
Prosecution Insights