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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 26, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on January 26, 2026. Claims 1-40 were pending in the Application. Claims 21, 27, 31,and 36 are amended. No new claims have been added. Claim 24 has been canceled, with claims 1-20, 23, and 37 remaining canceled, and with claims 32-35 remaining withdrawn. Claims 21 and 36 are the independent claims, with claims 22 and 25-31 depending from claim 21; and claims 38-40 depending from claim 36. Thus claims 21-22, 25-31, 36, and 38-40 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection, disagrees with the rejection and the characterizations made in the Office Action. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “claims 21-22, 24-31, 36, and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. §101 are directed to eligible subject matter; claims 21, 22, 24-31, 36, and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. §101 are directed to statutory subject matter, consistent with the Office's recent guidance, as opposed to manifestly abstract ideas or other non-statutory subject matter; and claims 21 and 36 have been amended to further prosecution.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20210357943 A1, para 1), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘943 A1, para 1), discloses that the invention relates generally to payment fraud detection infrastructure for establishing cross-issuer fraud detection across multiple payment cards used by consumers, which recites an abstract idea of “payment fraud detection”, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 21 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations of “retrieving, at an acquirer processor, transaction data and identifying information associated with an authorization request for a payment transaction using a first payment card; searching, by the acquirer processor using the identifying information at a transaction database, for a second payment card associated with the identifying information; aggregating, by the acquirer processor, transaction data associated with the first and second payment cards from the transaction database; retrieving, from a financial institution, reported fraudulent activities pertaining to the first and second payment cards; generating, profile data for the individual according to at least one of the identifying information associated with the authorization request, personally identifiable information (PII) of the individual, the aggregated transaction data associated with the first and second payment cards, and reported fraudulent activities on the first and second payment cards; generating, at the acquirer processor, a multidimensional score for the aggregated transaction data associated with the first and second payment cards; generating, by the acquirer processor, a unique hash value for the generated profile data associated with the individual: analyzing, by the acquirer processor, the payment transaction against the profile data; declining, by the acquirer processor, as a result of determining that the payment transaction is fraudulent activity, the authorization request for the payment transaction; and sending, over a computer network, a notification to a web server associated with the financial institution reporting the fraudulent activity”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “an acquirer processor”, “a transaction database”, “a computer network”, and “a web server associated with the financial institution”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of a “payment fraud detection”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea of a “payment fraud detection”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).”
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “payment fraud detection.” The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for “payment fraud detection.” For potential improvement in an abstract idea of “payment fraud detection,” it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in an abstract idea itself (e.g. a payment fraud detection concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 21 is non-statutory.
Claim 36 also recites the abstract idea of “payment fraud detection,” as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “a memory having processor-readable instructions stored therein”, “a processor configured to access the memory and execute the processor-readable instructions, which when executed by the processor configures the processor to perform a plurality of functions, including functions to: …”, “a transaction database”, “a computer network”, and “a web server associated with the financial institution”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “payment fraud detection”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), 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 “payment fraud detection” using computer technology (e.g., “a processor” and “a memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 36 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner reiterates the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, for paragraph 21 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 25, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, moot. Applicant has amended to delete the claim language “… issued by a second issuer that is different than the first issuer, the second payment card associated with the identifying information not being previously linked to the first payment card”, so that the limitation of claim 21 now recites, “searching, by the acquirer processor using the identifying information at a transaction database, for a second payment card associated with the identifying information”. Specification, (PG Pub US 20210357943 A1, para 30), recites “The processor 132 may further search for any additional payment cards associated with the retrieved identifying information associated with the transaction from the transaction database 144”, providing support for limitation “searching, by the acquirer processor using the identifying information at a transaction database, for a second payment card associated with the identifying information”. Therefore, specification, (‘943 A1, para 30), provides sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function “searching, by the acquirer processor using the identifying information at a transaction database, for a second payment card associated with the identifying information” to be performed. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, paragraph 21 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 25, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 102, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 25, 2025, Applicant argument is persuasive to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 that the cited reference, Wang, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160350759 A1, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest each and every element of the claimed structure of the rejected claim 36, and the rejected dependent claims 38-40. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for claims 35 and 38-40 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 25, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated September 25, 2025, Examiner failed to provide rationale for rescinding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated March 25, 2025. Examiner submits that Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the current record of art in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action, dated March 25, 2025, of Wang, US 20160350759 A1, Ivey, US 20160005029 A1, and Zhang, US 20150170175 A1, and render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 moot. The cited references of record individually, and in combination, fail to teach, disclose, or render obvious at least “aggregating, by the acquirer processor, transaction data associated with the first and second payment cards from the transaction database”, “generating, profile data for the individual according to at least one of the identifying information associated with the authorization request, personally identifiable information (PII) of the individual, the aggregated transaction data associated with the first and second payment cards, and reported fraudulent activities on the first and second payment cards”, “generating, at the acquirer processor, a multidimensional score for the aggregated transaction data associated with the first and second payment cards”, “generating, by the acquirer processor, a unique hash value for the generated profile data associated with the individual”, and “declining, by the acquirer processor, as a result of determining that the payment transaction is fraudulent activity, the authorization request for the payment transaction”. After further consideration and search, no prior art was found to render at least these limitations obvious. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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 21-22, 25-31, 36, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 21-22 and 25-31 are directed to “a method”; and claims 36 and 38-40 are directed to “a system”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 21 recites “payment fraud detection”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “retrieving, at an acquirer processor, transaction data and identifying information associated with an authorization request for a payment transaction using a first payment card; searching, by the acquirer processor using the identifying information at a transaction database, for a second payment card associated with the identifying information; aggregating, by the acquirer processor, transaction data associated with the first and second payment cards from the transaction database; retrieving, from a financial institution, reported fraudulent activities pertaining to the first and second payment cards; generating, profile data for the individual according to at least one of the identifying information associated with the authorization request, personally identifiable information (PII) of the individual, the aggregated transaction data associated with the first and second payment cards, and reported fraudulent activities on the first and second payment cards; generating, at the acquirer processor, a multidimensional score for the aggregated transaction data associated with the first and second payment cards; generating, by the acquirer processor, a unique hash value for the generated profile data associated with the individual: analyzing, by the acquirer processor, the payment transaction against the profile data; declining, by the acquirer processor, as a result of determining that the payment transaction is fraudulent activity, the authorization request for the payment transaction; and sending, over a computer network, a notification to a web server associated with the financial institution reporting the fraudulent activity”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP § 2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP § 2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “an acquirer processor”, “a transaction database”, “a computer network”, and “a web server associated with the financial institution”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “payment fraud detection”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), 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 describes the concept of “payment fraud detection” using computer technology (e.g., “an acquirer processor” and “a transaction database”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 21 is non-statutory.
Claim 36 also recites the abstract idea of “payment fraud detection,” as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “a memory having processor-readable instructions stored therein”, “a processor configured to access the memory and execute the processor-readable instructions, which when executed by the processor configures the processor to perform a plurality of functions, including functions to: …”, “a transaction database”, “a computer network”, and “a web server associated with the financial institution”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of “payment fraud detection.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), 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 “payment fraud detection” using computer technology (e.g., “a processor” and “a memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 36 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 22, 25-31, and 38-40 further describe the abstract idea of “payment fraud detection”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 21 and 36.
Dependent claims 25-28, 30-31, and 38-40 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “payment fraud detection”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Dependent claim 22 recites a new additional element of “a profile database”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claim 29 recites a new additional element of “source IP address”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Hence, claims 21-22, 25-31, 36, and 38-40 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Song et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080021801 A1) – Dynamically Multidimensional Risk-Weighted Suspicious Activities Detector
Song discloses a computerized method being established to detect suspicious and fraudulent activities in a group of subjects by defining and dynamically integrating multidimensional risks, which are based on the characteristics of the subjects, into a mathematical model to produce a set of the most up-to-date representative risk values for each subject based on its activities and background. These multidimensional risk definitions and representative risk values are used to select a subset of multidimensional risk-weighted detection algorithms so that suspicious or fraudulent activities in the group of subjects can be effectively detected with higher resolution and accuracy. A priority sequence, which is based on the set of detection algorithms that detect the subject and the representative risk values of the detected subject, is produced to determine the priority of each detected case during the investigation process. To assist the user to make a more objective decision, any set of multidimensional risks can be used to identify a group of subjects that contain this set of multidimensional risks so that group statistics can be obtained for comparison and other analytical purposes. Furthermore, to fine-tune the system for future detections and analyses, the detection results are used as the feedback to adjust the definitions of the multidimensional risks and their values, the mathematical model, and the multidimen-sional risk-weighted detection algorithms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, 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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN CHISM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
