DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 21, 31, and 38 have been amended.
Claims 21, 23-31, 33-38, and 40 are currently pending and have been considered by the examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection:
Firstly, Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner reasserts that claims recite limitations directed to the abstract idea of mitigating risk associated with an economic transaction including but not limited to: “generating, by the one or more processors, a fraud analysis profile request…”, “generating, by the one or more processors and based on the fraud analysis profile .. the fraud analysis profile…”, etc. Thus, the claims clearly recite the abstract idea of mitigating associated with an economic transaction.
Secondly, Applicant asserts that recited abstract idea is integrated into practical application, citing examples 42 and 47 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Example 42, the examiner reasserts the rationale outlined in the non-final rejection mailed 23 September 2025. Specifically that, when considering the BRI of the presently claimed limitations i.e. “performing one or more of data cleaning, data splitting, data translating, data merging, or data sorting”, the claimed functions cannot be considered significantly more than the generic performance of data formatting. As the processing formatting data is conventional and routine within the technological field of electronic transactions (as opposed to within the technical field of electronic medical records as outlined in Example 42) the examiner cannot consider the additional element to integrate to recited abstract idea into practical application.
Regarding Example 47, the examiner asserts that while Example 47 does outline a basis for integration into practical application additional elements which provide technical improvement on the basis of AI integration, the examiner asserts that the BRI of the claimed invention does not necessitate the implementation of any AI-specific technology, merely a generic “weighted computational model”. When considering the BRI of a “weighted computational model”, the examiner asserts that the claim language encompasses any mathematical formula in which contributing factors/variables are weighted, even by constant, static weight values. Thus, as none of the additional elements purport to impart any technological improvement on the basis of AI-integration, the examiner must conclude that Example 47 cannot be considered analogous to the present claim set.
Therefore, based on the above rationale and the rationale provided in the following 101 rejection, the examiner must maintain the previously issued 101 Rejection.
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, 23-31, and 33-40 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, 23-30 are directed to a method, claims 31 and 33-37 are directed to an system/apparatus, and claims 38-40 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 21 recites the following:
A computer-implemented method for training a fraud detection system to manage fraudulent transactions, the method comprising:
Receiving, by one or more processors an authorization request for at least one online transaction, the authorization request including a plurality of transaction data;
generating, by the one or more processors, a fraud analysis profile request and a unique hash based on a fraud analysis profile being unavailable;
importing, by the one or more processors based on the fraud analysis profile request and the unique hash, fraud dispute data and historical transaction data from a plurality of institution databases, wherein the historical transaction data is in one or more non-standard formats as determined by a source institution database;
transforming, by the one or more processors, the historical transaction data from the plurality of institution databases by performing one or more of data cleaning, data splitting, data translating, data merging, or data sorting to generate standardized historical transaction data in a standard format for analysis;
generating, by the one or more processors, and based on the fraud analysis profile request and the unique hash, the fraud analysis profile using the plurality of transaction data, the fraud dispute data, and the historical transaction data from the plurality of institution databases wherein the plurality of transaction data is associated with at least one user associated with the at least one online transaction;
Determining, by the one or more processors, a fraud risk score, an abandonment score, and a risk tolerance score using a weighted computation model and personalized inputs comprising: the plurality of transaction data, the fraud dispute data, and the historical transaction data from the plurality of institution databases, and the fraud analysis profile;
Transmitting, by the one or more processors and to a user device associated with the authorization request an authorization request approval based on the fraud risk score being lower than the abandonment score and the risk tolerance score;
receivinq, by the one or more processors, a validation messaqe or an error messaqe for the fraud risk score, wherein the validation messaqe or the error messaqe denotes whether the fraud risk score was accurate; and
confiqurinq, by the one or more processors, the weiqhted computational model for the fraud risk score in response to receivinq the validation messaqe or the error messaqe by adjustinq one or more weiqhts of the weighted computational model to more accurately determine the fraud risk score.
Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite the abstract idea of risk mitigation. Specifically, the claims recite the limitations underlined above which recite a process directed towards mitigating risk associated with an economic transaction which is grouped within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04) because the claims involve the process of mitigating risk associated with an economic transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
Regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as a “computer” and “one or more processors” merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the “computer” and “one or more processors” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of a “computer” and “one or more processors” amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the “computer” and “one or more processors” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the process of mitigating risk associated with an economic transaction. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 23-30, 33-37, and 40 further describe the abstract idea of risk mitigation. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically:
Claims 25, 29-30, and 35 merely further describes how the information used to perform the recited abstract idea of risk mitigation is gathered.
Claims 23-24, 27-28, 33-34, 37, and 40 merely further recites limitations directed towards the abstract idea of risk mitigation.
Claims 26 and 36 merely further describes how information used to perform the recited process the recited abstract idea is gathered and recites limitations directed towards to abstract idea of risk mitigation itself.
Therefore, as the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Drake, II et al. (US 20220086166 A1) generally discloses systems and methods for controlling access to digital assets based upon multiple risk factors.
Tidwell et al. (US 20050125350 A1) generally discloses system and methods for assessing risk associated with cashing second-party checks and other negotiable interests based on multiple different factors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS K PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm-9 pm 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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
/NICHOLAS K PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 /NEHA PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights