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 .
Amendments
This Office Action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on June 29, 2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
No new claims have been added.
The objections and rejections from the prior correspondence that are not restated herein are withdrawn.
No prior art was found that anticipates or renders Claims 1, 10, and 17 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 29, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 by improving technology, specifically that reducing the number of branches traversed reduces operations for calculating the precision score, and that filtering a chargeback transaction from a processing queue prior to cancelation uses fewer operations than the cancelation, providing a more efficient and accurate machine learning model. Applicant further argues that the claims are analogous to Subject Matter Eligibility example 47, Claim 3, which were found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to MPEP § 2106.05(a), the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement, and that the improvement must be provided by one or more additional elements. The recited reduction in operations reduces how many times the precision score is calculated, and calculating the precision score is part of the abstract idea. Reducing the branches for which the precision score is calculated is simply performing fewer of the recited mathematical operations, and is therefore an improvement to the abstract idea itself and not an improvement to computer functionality or a technological field.
Regarding the filtering of a chargeback transaction from a processing queue prior to cancellation, this limitation applies the abstract decision of which transactions to reject or to fully process. Using fewer operations is the direct result of rejecting a transaction before cancellation processing occurs, and not any improvement to the computer.
Regarding Example 47, Claim 3, the claim was found eligible because the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by improving network security. Here, the additional elements recite a computer system, accessing scores, running a simulation, adjusting the transaction processing rule, and outputting a result of the threshold applied, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As mentioned above, the claims simply reduce the number of calculations to be performed via the judicial exception.
Regarding the USPTO Memo of August 4, 2025, the improvement relied upon by the applicant is an abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements are data gathering, instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using generic computer components, and insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, this is not a “close call”, and it is more likely than not that the claims are ineligible. The additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as explained in the 101 rejections below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 10-16 are directed to a process. Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are directed to a machine or an article of manufacture.
With respect to claim(s) 1:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
for each of a plurality of branches in a machine learning algorithm tree, determining a first cutoff value and a second cutoff value that capture a range of the scores corresponding to the historic transactions; (Mental process – A person can mentally determine cutoff values that capture a range of scores of historic transactions – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining true positive numbers for the plurality of branches based on the scores and a subset of the historic transactions that meet or exceed at least one of the first cutoff value or the second cutoff value for each of the plurality of branches; (Mathematical concepts – Determining true positive numbers involves comparing scores to a threshold and counting the true positive numbers that meet or exceed the threshold (see paragraph [0034-0037]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
bypassing one of the plurality of branches having a corresponding one of the true positive numbers of zero; (Mental process – A person can mentally evaluate branches and bypass (e.g., skip, ignore, exclude, not consider) the branches having no true positive numbers – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
reducing the plurality of branches to a subset of the plurality of branches for calculating a precision score based on the true positive numbers meeting or exceeding a threshold true positive number, wherein the subset of the plurality of branches, when traversed for the machine learning algorithm tree, reduce operations for calculating the precision score when traversing the machine learning algorithm tree; (Mathematical concepts – Calculating a precision score involves mathematical calculations (see paragraph [0034]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
calculating the precision score for each of the subset of the plurality of branches based on a ratio associated with a first number of historic transactions to a second number of the historic transactions, wherein the first number comprises a number of the historic transactions that have chargebacks captured in the range, and wherein the second number comprises a number of all of the historic transactions captured in the range; (Mathematical calculations – Calculating the precision score based on a ratio involves mathematical calculations (see paragraph [0034]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
identifying a branch that has a greatest precision score from the precision scores for each of the subset of the plurality of branches; (Mental process – A person can mentally identify (e.g. evaluation, judgment) a branch that has a greatest precision score – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining a threshold defined by the first cutoff value and the second cutoff value for the identified branch in a transaction processing rule for the merchant account; (Mental process – A person can determine a threshold defined by cutoff values for an identified branch via mind or by using pen and paper – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2))
determining that the simulation indicates an improvement in a performance metric associated with processing the chargeback transactions; (Mental process – A person can mentally evaluate simulation metrics to determine an improvement – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
generating a recommendation to apply the threshold to the merchant account; (Mental process – A person can mentally generate (think of) a recommendation to apply the threshold to an account – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
filtering, using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied, an additional chargeback transaction from a processing queue prior to a cancellation of the additional chargeback transaction, wherein the filtering is performed using a number of operations reduced from a number of operations allocated to the cancellation. (Mathematical concepts – Filtering chargeback transactions involves comparing transactions against a threshold to determine if the transaction will be rejected or processed (see paragraphs [0024-0025] – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the claim limitations fall within the mathematical or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
A computer system comprising: a non-transitory memory storing instructions; one or more hardware processors configured to read the instructions and cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
accessing scores corresponding to historic transactions for a merchant account; (Mere data gathering – Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
running a simulation of processing chargeback transactions using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied to the merchant account; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
adjusting the transaction processing rule to have the threshold applied to the merchant account during a subsequent processing of a transaction based on a response to the recommendation; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
outputting a result of the threshold applied to the transaction processing rule during the subsequent processing of the transaction; (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A computer system comprising: a non-transitory memory storing instructions; one or more hardware processors configured to read the instructions and cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
accessing scores corresponding to historic transactions for a merchant account; (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(iv) - Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.)
running a simulation of processing chargeback transactions using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied to the merchant account; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
adjusting the transaction processing rule to have the threshold applied to the merchant account during a subsequent processing of a transaction based on a response to the recommendation; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
outputting a result of the threshold applied to the transaction processing rule during the subsequent processing of the transaction; (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 2:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
wherein the operations are performed at a periodic interval. (Mental process – A person can perform operations at a periodic interval in the mind or by using pen and paper – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite any new additional elements that would amount to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (individually or in combination) or significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
wherein, for a first branch in the machine learning algorithm tree, the first cutoff value is determined by sorting the historic transactions by score and selecting a median score. (Mathematical calculations – Determining a value by sorting and selecting a median score involves mathematical calculations – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2))
Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite any new additional elements that would amount to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (individually or in combination) or significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
wherein, for a first branch in the machine learning algorithm tree, the first cutoff value is determined by sorting the historic transactions by score and selecting a score where all transactions having chargebacks are captured either above or below the score. (Mathematical calculations – Determining a value by sorting transactions by score and selecting a score having chargebacks captured either above or below the score involves mathematical calculations – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2))
Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite any new additional elements that would amount to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (individually or in combination) or significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
simulating a transaction period using the transaction processing rule with the threshold applied. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
simulating a transaction period using the transaction processing rule with the threshold applied. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
determining that applying the threshold increases a total transaction volume for transactions processed using the merchant account. (Mental process – A person can mentally determine that transactions have increased after applying a threshold – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite any new additional elements that would amount to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (individually or in combination) or significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
receiving a request to implement the recommendation from the merchant account, (Mere data gathering – Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
wherein the adjusting the transaction processing rule is responsive to the request. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
receiving a request to implement the recommendation from the merchant account, (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
wherein the adjusting the transaction processing rule is responsive to the request. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 8:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the transaction processing rule is one of a plurality of transaction processing rules for the merchant account. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the transaction processing rule is one of a plurality of transaction processing rules for the merchant account. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the transaction processing rule comprises rejecting transactions that have an IP address risk score that does not meet the threshold. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the transaction processing rule comprises rejecting transactions that have an IP address risk score that does not meet the threshold. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
determining cutoff values for each branch of a plurality of branches in a tree, wherein the cutoff values for each branch in the tree captures a score of at least one chargeback transaction from historic transactions for a merchant account; (Mental process – A person can mentally determine cutoff values that capture a score of historic transactions – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining true positive numbers for the plurality of branches based on a subset of the historic transactions that meet or exceed one or more of the cutoff values for each branch of the plurality of branches; (Mathematical concepts – Determining true positive numbers involves comparing scores to a threshold and counting the true positive numbers that meet or exceed the threshold (see paragraph [0034-0037]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
bypassing one of the plurality of branches having a corresponding one of the true positive numbers of zero; (Mental process – A person can mentally evaluate branches and bypass (e.g., skip, ignore, exclude, not consider) the branches having no true positive numbers – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
reducing the plurality of branches to a subset of the plurality of branches for calculating a precision score based on the true positive numbers meeting or exceeding a threshold true positive number, wherein the subset of the plurality of branches, when traversed for the tree, reduce operations for calculating the precision score when traversing the tree; (Mathematical concepts – Calculating a precision score involves mathematical calculations (see paragraph [0034]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
calculating the precision score for each branch in the subset of the plurality of branches for the tree based on a ratio associated with a number of the historic transactions having chargebacks in relation to a number of the historic transactions captured by the cutoff values of the branch; (Mathematical calculations – Calculating the precision score based on a ratio involves mathematical calculations (see paragraph [0034]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
identifying a branch that has a greatest precision score from the precision scores for each of the subset of the plurality of branches; (Mental process – A person can mentally identify (e.g. evaluation, judgment) a branch that has a greatest precision score – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining the cutoff values for the identified branch usable as a threshold in a transaction processing rule for the merchant account; (Mental process – A person can determine a threshold defined by cutoff values for an identified branch via mind or by using pen and paper – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2))
determining that the simulation indicates an improvement in a performance metric associated with processing the transactions; (Mental process – A person can mentally evaluate simulation metrics to determine an improvement – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
generating a recommendation to apply the threshold to the transaction processing rule; (Mental process – A person can mentally generate (think of) a recommendation to apply the threshold to the transaction processing rule – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
filtering, using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied, an additional chargeback transaction from a processing queue prior to a cancellation of the additional chargeback transaction, wherein the filtering is performed using a number of operations reduced from a number of operations allocated to the cancellation. (Mathematical concepts – Filtering chargeback transactions involves comparing transactions against a threshold to determine if the transaction will be rejected or processed (see paragraphs [0024-0025] – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the claim limitations fall within the mathematical or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
A method comprising: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
running a simulation of processing transactions using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied to the merchant account; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
providing the recommendation to the merchant account; (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
applying the threshold to the transaction processing rule for the merchant account during a subsequent processing of a transaction based on a response to the recommendation; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A method comprising: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
running a simulation of processing transactions using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied to the merchant account; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
providing the recommendation to the merchant account; (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
applying the threshold to the transaction processing rule for the merchant account during a subsequent processing of a transaction based on a response to the recommendation; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 11:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
determining that the number of the at least one computational operation is reduced by a threshold number of operations. (Mental process – A person can mentally determine that computational operations are reduced by a threshold number of operations – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite any new additional elements that would amount to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (individually or in combination) or significantly more than the judicial exception.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
simulating a period using the threshold applied in the transaction processing rule; and (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
simulating a period using the threshold applied in the transaction processing rule; and (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 12:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
wherein a cutoff value for a root node in the tree is determined by grouping the historic transactions into chargeback transactions and non-chargeback transactions and selecting the cutoff value that captures all of the precision scores of the chargeback transactions. (Mental process – A person can determine a cutoff value by grouping transactions and selecting a value that captures all precision scores resulting from the grouping see – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite any new additional elements that would amount to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (individually or in combination) or significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 13:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the transaction processing rule is one of a plurality of transaction processing rules for the merchant account, and wherein the method further comprises: (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
simulating a period using the threshold applied in the transaction processing rule while other transactions processing rules of the plurality of transaction processing rules have currently active thresholds for the merchant account applied. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the transaction processing rule is one of a plurality of transaction processing rules for the merchant account, and wherein the method further comprises: (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
simulating a period using the threshold applied in the transaction processing rule while other transactions processing rules of the plurality of transaction processing rules have currently active thresholds for the merchant account applied. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 14:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
determining that the number of the at least one computational operation is reduced by a threshold number of operations. (Mental process – A person can mentally determine that the number of the at least one computational operation is reduced by a threshold number of operations – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite any new additional elements that would amount to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (individually or in combination) or significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 15:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the recommendation is provided in a merchant account analytics user interface. (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the recommendation is provided in a merchant account analytics user interface. (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 16:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the score of the at least one chargeback transaction comprises an IP address risk score. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the score of the at least one chargeback transaction comprises an IP address risk score. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 17:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
determining cutoff values for each branch of a plurality of branches in a tree; (Mental process – A person can mentally determine cutoff values that capture a score of historic transactions – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining true positive numbers for the plurality of branches based on the scores and a subset of the historic transactions that meet or exceed one or more of the cutoff values for each branch of the plurality of branches; (Mathematical concepts – Determining true positive numbers involves comparing scores to a threshold and counting the true positive numbers that meet or exceed the cutoff values (see paragraph [0034-0037]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
bypassing one of the plurality of branches having a corresponding one of the true positive numbers of zero; (Mental process – A person can mentally evaluate branches and bypass (e.g., skip, ignore, exclude, not consider) the branches having no true positive numbers – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
reducing the plurality of branches to a subset of the plurality of branches for calculating a precision score based on the true positive numbers meeting or exceeding a threshold true positive number, wherein the subset of the plurality of branches, when traversed for the tree, reduce operations for calculating the precision score when traversing the tree; (Mathematical concepts – Calculating a precision score involves mathematical calculations (see paragraph [0034]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
calculating the precision score for each of the subset of the plurality of branches based on a ratio associated with a number of the historic transactions having chargebacks in relation to a number of the historic transactions captured by the cutoff values; (Mathematical calculations – Calculating the precision score based on a ratio involves mathematical calculations (see paragraph [0034]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
comparing the precision scores of the subset of the plurality of branches; (Mental process – A person can mentally compare (e.g. evaluation, judgment) precisions scores – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
identifying a branch that has a greatest precision score from the precision scores based on the comparing; (Mental process – A person can mentally identify (e.g. evaluation, judgment) a branch that has a greatest precision score by comparing – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining the cutoff values of the identified branch usable as a threshold in a transaction processing rule for the merchant account; (Mental process – A person can determine the cutoff values for an identified branch via mind or by using pen and paper – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2))
determining that the simulation indicates an improvement in a performance metric associated with processing the chargeback transactions; (Mental process – A person can mentally evaluate simulation metrics to determine an improvement – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
generating a recommendation to apply the threshold for the merchant account; (Mental process – A person can mentally generate (think of) a recommendation to apply the threshold for an account – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
filtering, using the transaction processing rule having the applied threshold, an additional chargeback transaction from a processing queue prior to a cancellation of the additional chargeback transaction, wherein the filtering is performed using a number of operations reduced from a number of operations allocated to the cancellation. (Mathematical concepts – Filtering chargeback transactions involves comparing transactions against a threshold to determine if the transaction will be rejected or processed (see paragraphs [0024-0025] – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the claim limitations fall within the mathematical or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions are executable to cause a machine of a system to perform operations comprising: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
accessing scores corresponding to historic transactions for a merchant account; (Mere data gathering – Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
running a simulation of processing chargeback transactions using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied to the merchant account; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
providing a result of applying the threshold to the transaction processing rule for a subsequent processing of a transaction by the merchant account based on a response to the recommendation; (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions are executable to cause a machine of a system to perform operations comprising: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
accessing scores corresponding to historic transactions for a merchant account; (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(iv) - Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.)
running a simulation of processing chargeback transactions using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied to the merchant account; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
providing a result of applying the threshold to the transaction processing rule for a subsequent processing of a transaction by the merchant account based on a response to the recommendation; (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 18:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
wherein the operations are performed at a scheduled interval. (Mental process – A person can perform operations at a scheduled interval in the mind or by using pen and paper – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite any new additional elements that would amount to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (individually or in combination) or significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 19:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the recommendation is provided in an analytics user interface for the merchant account. (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the recommendation is provided in an analytics user interface for the merchant account. (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)) - Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 20:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
wherein the threshold captures all of the historic transactions having chargebacks and none of the historic transactions that do not have chargebacks. (Mathematical concepts – The threshold is defined by cutoff values that specify a range of transaction scores, where the range captures transactions having chargebacks and excludes transactions not having chargebacks based on a mathematical comparison (see paragraph [0028]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite any new additional elements that would amount to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (individually or in combination) or significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alvaro S Laham Bauzo whose telephone number is (571)272-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 11:00 AM | 1:00 PM - 5:30 PM 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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. 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.
/A.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2146
/USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights