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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 1/6/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 4/7/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP22386018.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/6/2026 has been entered.
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 – are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The method of claim 1, system of claim 9 and CRM of claim 17 are within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong one – do the claims recite a judicial exception, which is an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Using the text of claim 1 as an example, claims 1, 9 and 17 recite:
A computer-implemented method for detecting websites that perpetrate at least one of scams or frauds, at least a portion of the method being performed by a computing device comprising at least one processor, the method comprising:
performing, by the at least one processor, a transaction trend analysis on financial transactions with merchants to identify financial anomalies;
detecting, by the at least one processor, a browser visiting a domain with an unknown domain reputation;
performing, by the at least one processor in response to the unknown domain reputation, an online interaction analysis on online interactions with domains to generate online interaction data that includes information on suspicious websites and tracks domain reputation scores for the domains;
correlating, by the at least one processor, the online interaction data with the financial transaction data to correlate the merchants with the domains by instantiating a pointer from a domain entry of the online interaction data with a merchant entry of the financial transaction data,
wherein the correlating cross-references domain and merchant information based on the pointer to allow connecting at least one of the identified financial anomalies to a specific website visit; and
the correlating triggers further based on the correlating satisfying at least one of a domain reputation threshold and a merchant reputation threshold, bidirectional dynamic propagation of correlations by instantiating additional pointers based on the cross-references between the domain entries and the merchant entries, and between the merchant entries and the domain entries;
detecting, by the at least one processor based on the bidirectional correlation, at least one of: detecting that an online interaction is suspicious based on correlation thereof to a suspicious financial transaction, or detecting that a financial transaction is suspicious based on correlation thereof to a suspicious online interaction; and
performing, by the at least one processor, a security action in response to the detection.
Referring to the limitations above, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recite an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, claims 1, 9 and 17 recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, as drafted claims 1, 9 and 17 only recite the commercial or legal interaction of detecting that an online interaction is suspicious based on correlation thereof to a suspicious financial transaction, or detecting that a financial transaction is suspicious based on correlation thereof to a suspicious online interaction; and performing a security action in response to the detection for the purpose, as discussed in at least paragraph [0023] of the Applicant’s specification, of identifying sources of fraud and blacklisting malicious sites before customers submit payment. Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) discussing mitigating settlement risk as an example of a commercial or legal interaction. The performing of a security action in response to the detection of online scams or fraud is also a legal interaction in the U.S. Accordingly, claims 1, 9 and 17 are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
As noted above, the claims have been placed under the commercial or legal interactions subgrouping of certain methods of organizing human activity discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). However, it is respectfully further noted that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in reference to the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas, discusses performing a mental process in a computer environment with specific references to detecting fraud. For example, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) notes “Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296”. Here, using intersecting indicators of suspicious activity (suspicious online interaction, suspicious financial transaction) to discover related suspicious activity has been accomplished by humans since well before the effective filing date.
Step 2A, prong two – do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Integration of the judicial exception into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Regarding claim 1, 9 and 17, these claims only recites the additional elements of a computer, websites, computing device, at least one processor, and browser to perform a method for detecting at least one of scams or frauds, the method comprising: performing a transaction trend analysis on financial transactions with merchants to identify financial anomalies; detecting visiting a domain with an unknown domain reputation; performing, in response to the unknown domain reputation, an online interaction analysis on online interactions with domains to generate online interaction data that includes information on suspicious websites and tracks domain reputation scores for the domains; correlating the online interaction data with the financial transaction data to correlate the merchants with the domains by instantiating a pointer from a domain entry of the online interaction data with a merchant entry of the financial transaction data, wherein the correlating cross-references domain and merchant information based on the pointer to allow connecting at least one of the identified financial anomalies to a specific website visit; and the correlating triggers dynamic propagation of correlations by instantiating additional pointers based on the cross-references; detecting, based on the correlation, at least one of: detecting that an online interaction is suspicious based on correlation thereof to a suspicious financial transaction, or detecting that a financial transaction is suspicious based on correlation thereof to a suspicious online interaction; and performing, by the at least one processor, a security action in response to the detection. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(g) regarding adding insignificant extra-solution activity including data gathering and manipulation. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(h) regarding field of use and technological environment. It is further noted that the claimed invention as recited in claims 1, 9 and 17 do not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer components themselves or a technological solution to a technological problem.
Step 2B – do the claims recited additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer, websites, computing device, at least one processor, and browser to perform a method for detecting at least one of scams or frauds, the method comprising: performing a transaction trend analysis on financial transactions with merchants to identify financial anomalies; detecting visiting a domain with an unknown domain reputation; performing, in response to the unknown domain reputation, an online interaction analysis on online interactions with domains to generate online interaction data that includes information on suspicious websites and tracks domain reputation scores for the domains; correlating the online interaction data with the financial transaction data to correlate the merchants with the domains by instantiating a pointer from a domain entry of the online interaction data with a merchant entry of the financial transaction data, wherein the correlating cross-references domain and merchant information based on the pointer to allow connecting at least one of the identified financial anomalies to a specific website visit; and the correlating triggers dynamic propagation of correlations by instantiating additional pointers based on the cross-references; detecting, based on the correlation, at least one of: detecting that an online interaction is suspicious based on correlation thereof to a suspicious financial transaction, or detecting that a financial transaction is suspicious based on correlation thereof to a suspicious online interaction; and performing, by the at least one processor, a security action in response to the detection amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The computer components implementing the abstract idea appear to be generic in view of at least paragraphs [0027]-[0029] of the Applicant’s specification. Accordingly, claims 1, 9 and 17 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In view of the above analysis, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 do not cure the deficiencies in their respective base claims. Specifically, claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 merely refine the abstract idea (2A1) by invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (2A2, 2B). Regarding the further additional elements in the dependent claims including the alert (claims 8, 16, 20), please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters (US 2022/0084033) in view of Wardman (US 2021/0158349).
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for detecting websites that perpetrate at least one of scams or frauds, at least a portion of the method being performed by a computing device comprising at least one processor, the method comprising: (Walters, [0002], [0003], method to determine a website’s trustworthiness; Fig. 3, [0045], computing device, processor)
performing, by the at least one processor, a transaction trend analysis on financial transactions with merchants to identify financial anomalies; (Walters, [0076], [0077], data representing fraudulent transactions can include merchant fraud data; [0078], “identify when fraud often occurs”)
detecting, by the at least one processor, a browser visiting a domain with an unknown domain reputation; (Walters, [0058], upon visiting website browser extension application can transmit web address to browser extension server. Walters does not specifically disclose unknown domain reputation. Wardman, [0056], [0073], discusses domain scoring including evaluating newly generated domains. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective fling to modify the analysis of Walters to further include consideration of newly generated domains as in Wardman in order to prevent fraud as discussed in Wardman, [0002], and Walters, [0018]. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the features as taught in Wardman in Walters since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, both references are in the field of web analytics and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination to be predictable.)
performing, by the at least one processor in response to the unknown domain reputation, an online interaction analysis on online interactions with domains to generate online interaction data that includes information on suspicious websites and tracks domain reputation scores for the domains; (Walters, [0075], determine whether a website is associated with illicit activity. Walters does not specifically disclose domain reputation scores and in response to the unknown domain reputation. Wardman, [0056], [0057], discusses domain scoring module 360, and Wardman, [0073], further considers newly generated domains. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective fling to modify the analysis of Walters to further include the domain scoring and newly generated domains as in Wardman in order to prevent fraud as discussed in Wardman, [0002], and Walters, [0018].)
correlating, by the at least one processor, the online interaction data with the financial transaction data to correlate the merchants with the domains by instantiating a pointer from a domain entry of the online interaction data with a merchant entry of the financial transaction data, (Walters, [0075], [0076], correlate website data with fraudulent transactions, which include merchant fraud data. See also Wardman, [0061], “determining whether a merchant account associated with the requested transaction has received payments from one or more of the domains included in the set of domains scored by domain scoring module 360 prior to the requested transaction”. It is respectfully submitted that the above disclosure teaching correlating in Walters also obviates “instantiating a pointer from a domain entry of the online interaction data with a merchant entry of the financial transaction data” under BRI in view of Applicant’s specification, [0037], which notes “The term “correlate,” as used herein, generally refers to presenting or setting forth so as to show relationship. For example, and without limitation, one or more pointers may be instantiated between data objects that represent different things, such as online interactions and financial transactions.” Briefly, as the Applicant’s themselves notes as an example of “correlate” is one or more pointers may be instantiated between data objects that represent different things, then the correlation of Walters obviates instantiating a pointer from a domain entry of the online interaction data with a merchant entry of the financial transaction data. Please see MPEP 2144.06(II).)
wherein the correlating cross-references domain and merchant information based on the pointer to allow connecting at least one of the identified financial anomalies to a specific website visit; and (Walters, [0075]-[0077], correlate website visit data with instances of fraud, including websites, merchants and transactions, “match instances of website visit with instances of fraud”);
the correlating the correlating triggers further based on the correlating satisfying at least one of a domain reputation threshold and a merchant reputation threshold, bidirectional dynamic propagation of correlations by instantiating additional pointers based on the cross-references between the domain entries and the merchant entries, and between the merchant entries and the domain entries; (Walters, [0075]-[0077], correlate website visit data, after matching various datasets, determine a likelihood that visits to a website will result in instances of fraud. Walters does not specifically disclose dynamic propagation of correlations by instantiating additional pointers based on the cross-references. Wardman, [0056], discusses if registration information is observed for domains associated, then domain scoring module 360 scores the particular domain similarly, reading on the above feature under BRI in view of Applicant’s specification, [0049]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective fling to modify the correlation of Walters to further include scoring other domains similarly based on similarities such as registration information as in Wardman in order to prevent fraud as discussed in Wardman, [0002], and Walters, [0018].)
detecting, by the at least one processor, based on the bidirectional correlation, at least one of: detecting that an online interaction is suspicious based on correlation thereof to a suspicious financial transaction, or detecting that a financial transaction is suspicious based on correlation thereof to a suspicious online interaction; and (Walters, [0075], determine whether a website is associated with illicit activity; [0076], [0077], correlate website visit data with instances of fraud)
performing, by the at least one processor, a security action in response to the detection. (Walters, [0081], [0082], warn the user and/or take remedial action which is believed to read on “security action” under BRI in view of Applicant’s specification, [0010]. Further, Wardman, [0073], discusses determining risky domains and preventing transactions using risky domains. If necessary, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the warnings and remedial action of Walters to further include domain-level prevention of transactions as in Wardman in order to prevent fraud as discussed in Wardman, [0002], and Walters, [0018].)
Claims 9 and 17 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected on the same grounds. Regarding system claim 9, Walters, [0020], system. Regarding CRM claim 17, Walters, [0100], CRM.
Claim 2 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the correlating includes identifying financial transactions that occur in a same timeframe as online interactions and matching monetary amounts thereof. (Walter, [0077], [0078], match time, purchase amount)
Claim 10 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 3 recites:
The method of claim 2, wherein occurring in the same timeframe corresponds to at least one of: occurring on a same day; or occurring in a sequence exhibited by both the financial transactions and the online interactions. (Walters, [0077], [0078], determine whether datasets match, dataset includes date)
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 4 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the online interaction analysis further includes: logging one or more websites visited by a user; (Walters, [0065], browsing history)
differentiating between one or more websites directly accessed by the user and one or more websites accessed due to an online interaction performed by the user; (Walters, [0065], [0066], browsing history includes visit to a website, an address for a page or link which directed the user to the website)
logging the online interaction and an online location of the user when the online interaction occurred; (Walters, [0023], location identification information; [0065], [0066], address for a page, data provided by the user to the website)
analyzing when the user inserts payment information, including storing another online location at which the insertion occurred, a monetary amount thereof, and one or more requests generated by the insertion; and (Walters, [0066], data provided by the user to the website; [0075], [0076], providing financial information and ordering products)
storing information about one or more domains involved in insertion of payment information and one or more online interactions leading thereto. (Walters, [0059], labeled website data can be stored on databases; [0066]-[0068], data requested on each website visited by the user and the data provided by the user to the website)
Claims 12 and 18 correspond to claim 4 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 5 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the information about one or more domains includes one or more domain reputations, the method further comprising: triggering the transaction trend analysis in response to detection of a domain having a domain reputation score indicating that the domain is known to be associated with online scams or frauds. (Walters, [0078], enable the user to understand, whether a user interacting on a given website experiences fraud more often than others; [0079], score of ratio of fraud, taking action such as blocking based on score. Walters does not specifically disclose the information about one or more domains includes one or more domain reputations, the method further comprising: triggering the transaction trend analysis in response to detection of a domain having a domain reputation score indicating that the domain is known to be associated with online scams or frauds. Wardman, [0056], [0057], discusses domain scoring module 360; Wardman, [0051]-[0053], discusses reputation and blacklisting; and Wardman, [0071], discusses classifying a transaction for further review. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the analysis of Walters to further include reputation information, blacklisting, and instigating further review based on reputation as in Wardman in order to prevent fraud as discussed in Wardman, [0002], and Walters, [0018].)
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 6 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the transaction trend analysis includes: identifying one or more confirmed fraud alerts triggered by one or more financial transactions; (Walters, [0072], [0073], fraudulent transaction data)
identifying reversed charges that appear in the one or more financial transactions; ([0072], “transactions that an account owner disputed as fraudulent” reading on “reversed charges” under BRI in view of Applicant’s specification, [0052].)
identifying anomalous behavior exhibited by the one or more financial transactions; and (Walters, [0072], [0073], “FSP system’s fraud identification module identified as fraudulent” reading on “anomalous” under BRI in view of Applicant’s specification, [0052]. See also Wardman, [0033], regarding differences increasing a risk score.)
determining a merchant reputation score by aggregating the financial transaction data by merchant and analyzing a prevalence of financial transactions thereof that at least one of are reversed, result in confirmed fraud alerts, or exhibit the anomalous behavior. (Walters, [0079], score representing ratio of fraud)
Claims 14 and 19 correspond to claim 6 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 7 recites:
The method of claim 6, further comprising: triggering the online interaction analysis in response to determination of a merchant reputation score falling below a merchant reputation threshold. (Walters, [0075], determine whether a website is associated with illicit activity. Walters does not specifically disclose triggering the online interaction analysis in response to determination of a merchant reputation score falling below a merchant reputation threshold. Wardman, [0033], [0044], discusses a risk threshold, Wardman, [0070], discusses classifying a transaction for further review based on evaluated risk, and Wardman, [0072], discusses a risk score for a transaction being based on a reputation of companies hosting domains. See also Wardman, [0060], [0061], discussing the transaction scoring module, and Wardman, [0052], [0057], further discussing reputation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the analysis of Walters to further include the risk threshold, reputation information and instigating further review based on reputation as in Wardman in order to prevent fraud as discussed in Wardman, [0002], and Walters, [0018].)
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 8 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the security action includes at least one of: improving a blacklist of suspicious websites; improving a suspicion score associated with a website; generating an alert regarding at least one of a suspicious online transaction or a suspicious website associated therewith; or blocking access to a suspicious website. (Walters, [0018], [0027], [0081], [0082], warn the user; [0079], blocked by the browser extension server)
Claims 16 and 20 correspond to claim 8 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Step 2A, prong one, no arguments were presented regarding Step 2A, prong one.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include improvements to the functioning of a computer, applying the judicial exception with a particular machine, effecting transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing or applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful was beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the amendments herein obviate this rejection. For example, the independent claims recite, "instantiating a pointer from a domain entry of the online interaction data with a merchant entry of the financial transaction data" and "the correlating triggers dynamic propagation of correlations by instantiating additional pointers based on the cross-references," reciting a practical application of any alleged abstract idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application. As shown above, the claims do not recite and the Applicant’s remarks do not discuss any details of how a pointer is instantiated from a domain entry of the online interaction data with a merchant entry of the financial transaction data, or even what a pointer is. The “pointer” limitation is mentioned one time in Applicant’s specification, [0037], without any details regarding how a pointer is instantiated from a domain entry of the online interaction data with a merchant entry of the financial transaction data, or even what a pointer is. Since Applicant’s specification, [0037], notes that an alternative to a pointer is a data structure that indicates a relationship, it is respectfully submitted that a meaningful limit on the judicial exception has not been imposed. Further, as shown above, the claims do not recite and the Applicant’s remarks do not discuss any details of how “dynamic propagation of correlations by instantiating additional pointers based on the cross-references” is accomplished. As noted above, the “pointer” limitation is mentioned one time in Applicant’s specification, [0037], without any details regarding how a pointer is instantiated, or even what a pointer is. Applicant’s specification, [0047], [0049], only discloses in conclusory terms propagating information to other computing devices for use in preventing online interactions. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that a meaningful limit on the judicial exception has not been imposed. It is further noted that MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discusses an example where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome includes remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application. In the present case, the claim invokes a processor merely as a tool to perform the existing process of correlating data to determine if an interaction is suspicious.
Regarding Step 2B, no arguments were presented regarding Step 2B. However, Step 2B is directed to whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (AKA “significantly more”) than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(d) gives examples recognized by the courts of known computer functions including “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “performing repetitive calculations”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, “recording a customer’s order”, “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price” and “arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price”, all of which directly correspond to the generically claimed operations of the present claims, which claim detecting that an online interaction is suspicious based on correlation thereof to a suspicious financial transaction, or detecting that a financial transaction is suspicious based on correlation thereof to a suspicious online interaction.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and the amendments to the claims are addressed in detail above. Applicant argues “As detailed above, Applicant has amended each independent claim in accordance with the agreement reached in the telephone interview. As agreed upon in this interview, the art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to disclose at least these amended features. Accordingly, because the art of record fails to disclose, teach, or suggest each and every feature of the independent claims, this art fails to represent art sufficient to establish a prima facie obviousness rejection.” In response, upon further consideration it is the Examiner’s position that the independent claims are obvious in view of the relied upon references. Walters, [0075], [0076], discusses correlating website data with fraudulent transactions, which include merchant fraud data. It is respectfully submitted that the above disclosure teaching correlating in Walters also obviates “instantiating a pointer from a domain entry of the online interaction data with a merchant entry of the financial transaction data” under BRI in view of Applicant’s specification, [0037], which notes “The term “correlate,” as used herein, generally refers to presenting or setting forth so as to show relationship. For example, and without limitation, one or more pointers may be instantiated between data objects that represent different things, such as online interactions and financial transactions.” Briefly, as the Applicant’s themselves notes as an example of “correlate” is one or more pointers may be instantiated between data objects that represent different things, then the correlation of Walters obviates instantiating a pointer from a domain entry of the online interaction data with a merchant entry of the financial transaction data. Please see MPEP 2144.06(II). As noted above, the limitation “pointer” is used only once in the Applicant’s specification, [0037], without any technical description. If the pointer has technical features, the Applicant is respectfully invited to include such arguments in the record. It appears that the Applicant admits in their background section that it is already known to detect fraud based on transaction data or web data and that all that is being claimed is combining these data points. Please see MPEP 2143 which notes examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” By the Applicant’s own admission, the invention merely combines known elements (data points) to achieve a predictable result (detecting fraud).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: US 11699159; US 20200372167; US 20200364713; US 20150081534; US 20110251951; US 20060259825; US 20050143966; US 20030004919; and US 20020145433. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691