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 amendment filed on January 26, 2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 10, 14, and 16-17 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The objections and rejections from the prior correspondence that are not restated herein are withdrawn.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 January 26, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
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:
“The claims provide specific improvements in technology so as to be limited to a practical application that improves over the prior systems. The specification described the problem at paragraphs [0003] and [0015] of the present application where ML models may have broad applicability to enable artificial intelligence (Al) systems to automatically and intelligently make inferences, decisions, or predictions on input data, but such ML models are not optimized to reduce computational resource usage from inefficient or low accuracy execution of certain branches in a tree-based ML model that are not required and/or yield low accuracy predictions during model execution.
As such, the limitations recited in the amended claims provide improved ML models that more efficiently process input transactions to identify chargeback transactions indicative of fraud, or other desired risk, fraud, or anomaly detection, by reducing the number of tree branches requiring execution and processing for tree-based ML models. The ML model is improved by implementing a branch filtering process that prevents or eliminates the execution of certain tree branches that do not meet minimum accuracy or precision requirements. This enables more efficient and accurate execution of ML models that reduce the number of tree branches requiring execution, and therefore the number of data processing operations and/or data loads required to be processed. The presently amended claims thereby provide specific computational processes that implement threshold-based branch filtering to branches of machine learning models, which improves ML model efficiency and accuracy. Such limitations are directed at a solution to the aforementioned technical problem.
Consequently, Applicant asserts that the amended claims include several limitations that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical limitation, as required under the current guidance and reinforced in the USPTO Memo of August 4, 2025, including at pages 4-5 ("Improvements consideration" and "Apply it" guidance). Accordingly, even if the amended claims 1, 10, and 17 are considered to be directed to an alleged abstract idea, the amended claims (and their corresponding dependent claims), when taken as a whole, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical limitation as shown by the improvement to technology and/or a technical field as discussed above.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It should be noted that the claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to the mathematical calculation of a precision score by applying a branch reduction filtering mechanism. The alleged improvement in computational resource usage is simply the result of determining what branches to process for mathematical calculations based on a threshold value. Performing less mathematical operations based on a filtering mechanism does not constitute an improvement to the functionality of the computer. Furthermore, the limitation of reducing branches based on the bypassing or true positive numbers meeting or exceeding a threshold is a judicial exception, as shown in detail in the 101 rejections below. Moreover, the improvement must be provided by the additional elements recited in the claim. The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, do not provide an improvement to technology, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim recites “reducing the plurality of branches to a subset of the plurality of branches for calculating a precision score based on the bypassing and the true positive numbers meeting or exceeding a threshold true positive number”. Specification paragraph [0037] states “the computer system may identify which branches have true positive numbers and limit the calculation of precisions scores to those branches that have at least one true positive number. Branches that do not have at least one true positive number may be bypassed.” These two conditions for reducing the plurality of branches refer to the same idea. This means that branches with one or more true positive (TP) numbers will be used for calculating the precision score. Consequently, branches with zero TP numbers will not be used for calculating the precision score. Reducing the branches to a subset using either of the two conditions would result in the exact same subset of branches. Therefore, it is unclear whether the reduction of the branches relies on a single criterion or two distinct criteria, and thus claim 1 is rendered indefinite under 112(b).
Regarding Claims 10 and 17:
The claims recite similar limitations as corresponding claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 using similar rationale.
Regarding Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20:
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims and are likewise rejected.
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 1-9 and 17-20 are directed to a machine. Claims 10-16 are directed to a process.
With respect to claim(s) 1:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites 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 – 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 bypassing and the true positive numbers meeting or exceeding a threshold true positive number; (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, (Mathematical calculations – 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 – 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; (Mathematical calculations and/or mental process – 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 – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
generating a recommendation to apply the threshold to the merchant account; (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
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; (Mathematical calculations and/or mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim 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; (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see § MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
one or more hardware processors configured to read the instructions and cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see § MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
accessing scores corresponding to historic transactions for a merchant account; (Mere data gathering – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
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; (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).)
running a simulation of processing chargeback transactions using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied to the merchant account; (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).)
outputting a result of applying the threshold to the transaction processing rule during the subsequent processing of the transaction. (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
2B: The claim does 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; (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see § MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
one or more hardware processors configured to read the instructions and cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see § MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
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)(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 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; (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).)
running a simulation of processing chargeback transactions using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied to the merchant account; (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).)
outputting a result of applying the threshold 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).)
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 2:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations are performed at a periodic interval. (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim does 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.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
The computer system of claim 1, 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 and/or mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2))
Additionally, the claim does 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.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
The computer system of claim 1, 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 and/or mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2))
Additionally, the claim does 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.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
simulating a transaction period using the transaction processing rule with the threshold applied. (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim does 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.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
determining that applying the threshold increases a total transaction volume for transactions processed using the merchant account. (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim does 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.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
wherein the adjusting the transaction processing rule is responsive to the request. (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Additional elements:
receiving a request to implement the recommendation from the merchant account, (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).)
2B: The claim does 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, (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).)
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 8:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim 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. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.0S(h).)
2B: The claim does 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. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.0S(h).)
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
wherein the transaction processing rule comprises rejecting transactions that have an IP address risk score that does not meet the threshold. (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim does 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.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
determining cutoff values for each branch of a plurality of branches in a tree (Mental process – 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 bypassing and the true positive numbers meeting or exceeding a threshold true positive number; (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, (Mathematical calculations – 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 – 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 – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining that the simulation indicates an improvement in a performance metric associated with processing the chargeback transactions; (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
generating a recommendation to apply the threshold to the transaction processing rule; (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
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; (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).)
running a simulation of processing chargeback transactions using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied to the merchant account; (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).)
providing the recommendation to the merchant account; (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(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. (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).)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
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; (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).)
running a simulation of processing chargeback transactions using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied to the merchant account; (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).)
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. (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).)
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 11:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
simulating a period using the threshold applied in the transaction processing rule; and (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining that the number of the at least one computational operation is reduced by a threshold number of operations. (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim does 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.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 12:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites 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 scores of the chargeback transactions. (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim does 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.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 13:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
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. (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim 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).)
2B: The claim does 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 (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).)
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 14:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites 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 – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim does 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.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 15:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
The method of claim 10, wherein the recommendation is provided in a merchant account analytics user interface. (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).)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
The method of claim 10, wherein the recommendation is provided in a merchant account analytics user interface. (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).)
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 16:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim 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. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
2B: The claim does 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. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 17:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
determining cutoff values for each branch of a plurality of branches in a tree; (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
calculating a precision score, for each of the plurality of branches, based on a ratio associated with a number of historic transactions having chargebacks in relation to a number of historic transactions captured by the cutoff values; (Mathematical calculations – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
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 bypassing and the true positive numbers meeting or exceeding a threshold true positive number; (Mathematical concepts – Calculating a precision score involves mathematical calculations (see paragraph [0034]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
comparing the precision scores of the subset of plurality of branches; (Mental process – 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 – 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 – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining that the simulation indicates an improvement in a performance metric associated with processing the chargeback transactions; (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
generating a recommendation to apply the threshold for the merchant account; (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim 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, (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see § MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
wherein the instructions are executable to cause a machine of a system to perform operations comprising: (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).)
accessing scores corresponding to historic transactions for a merchant account; (Mere data gathering – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
running a simulation of processing chargeback transactions using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied to the merchant account; (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).)
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 § MPEP2106.05(g).)
2B: The claim does 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, (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see § MPEP 2106.05(b)(I))
wherein the instructions are executable to cause a machine of a system to perform operations comprising: (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).)
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)(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).)
running a simulation of processing chargeback transactions using the transaction processing rule having the threshold applied to the merchant account; (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).)
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).)
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 18:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
wherein the operations are performed at a scheduled interval. (Mental process – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim does 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.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 19:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim 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 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).)
2B: The claim does 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. (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).)
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim(s) 20:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the threshold captures all of the historic transactions having chargebacks and none of the historic transactions that do not have chargebacks. (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).)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the threshold captures all of the historic transactions having chargebacks and none of the historic transactions that do not have chargebacks. (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).)
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Conclusion
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 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