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 communication(s) filed on 30 January 2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 21-24 are newly added.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of Claims 1-20 Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that the present claim as a whole cannot be practically performed in the human mind and that examiner asserted as such. This is an incorrect and an incorrect analysis. “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). “If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. The claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.04(d)” See at least MPEP §2106.04(a). Rather, it is sufficient if certain identified claim limitations recite an abstract idea with other limitations being identified as additional elements. It is not whether or not the claims as a whole recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1, but rather if identified claim limitations recite an abstract idea which is what Examiner presented in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10 September 2025 at page 19.
Applicant further refutes that the human mind could call ALL the sources of data in the network. Examiner notes that their claims do not recite successful retrieval of all the data in their network. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, it is noted that in the instant Office Action the AI/ML is identified as an additional element (i.e. it is not abstract) rendering applicant’s arguments regarding its performance in the human mind moot.
Applicant argues that combining blockchain and traditional financial data requires transforming data. Examiner notes the claims do not recite any transformation of data. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With regards to the segregating, Examiner notes the following: Step 2A Prong 1 requires examiners to evaluate whether a claim recites a judicial exception as the applicant cited. The elements which examiner identified in Step 2A Prong 1 are those which describe the noted abstract idea which means that the claim recites an abstract idea. “The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.” See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2). “When performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Therefore, there is no requirement for the examiner to rely on evidence, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), to find that a claim recites a judicial exception. Cf. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271-72, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1214-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming district court decision that identified an abstract idea in the claims without relying on evidence); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (same).” See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). The omitted element(s) (if any) are elements in addition to the abstract idea (i.e. they are not abstract) which require further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 in order to determine if they cause the recited abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.07(a)(II). The omitted element(s) (if any) are later enumerated under Step 2A Prong 2 as additional elements. Thus, it is sufficient to provide a reasoned rationale (“Mitigating Risk is described when determining a Risk Score based on applicable laws”; from the instant Office Action) as to why the claims recite Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. The claims recite and/or describe a judicial exception.
Applicant asserts that during the interview Examiner indicated a view that eligibility requires an “improvement to the functioning of a computer”. This is incorrect and does not appear on either the Office’s or the Applicant’s own record of the interview. Given such absence any and all of applicant’s arguments regarding such an assertion are moot.
Applicant argues that aggregating data from so many different sources and for so many different uses did not exist until this invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination.” See MPEP § 2106.05(I). Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Furthermore, tests for whether an element is conventional under Step 2B only applies to the additional elements recited and not to the abstract idea present within the claims. Improvement of technology by virtue of novelty or non-obviousness is not a test of eligibility.
With regards to the content of the specification Examiner notes the following:
“It was the specification's discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility” (MPEP §2106.05(a)(I))
Thus it is the responsibility of the specification to properly disclose the technical nature of the invention. Applicant is freely able to add material to the specification by filing a Continuation-in-Part (CIP) application for the instant application following MPEP §201.08 and 37 C.F.R. 1.78.
Applicant asserts that the invention is a technical system performing new functions and thus is drawn to patentable subject matter since it is not a requirement that only inventions that improve upon baseline functionality can be patented. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this conclusion. Such analysis was never asserted by the Office and is not a baseline for patent eligibility. As such, Applicant’s argument regarding said analysis is moot.
Applicant argues that the Examiner has not proved that aspects of the invention are well-understood, routine, and fundamental. Examiner notes that it was never asserted that the abstract elements are “well-understood, routine, and conventional”. The Step 2B analysis uses “conventional”, not “fundamental” (see further the instant citation). “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d)” (See MPEP 2106.05(II)).
In both the prior and instant Office Action, the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two are equally applied in Step 2B which further re-evaluates additional elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity and evaluates these elements as per MPEP §2106.05(d) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Said elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity are evaluated as well-understood, routine, and conventional as per the evidentiary requirements detailed in MPEP §2106.07(a)(III) utilizing option (B) via citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Thus, there are no further elements to evaluate under Step 2B. Most considerations relating to any additional elements were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two and thus do not require further re-evaluation in Step 2B. Furthermore, “When performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Therefore, there is no requirement for the examiner to rely on evidence, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), to find that a claim recites a judicial exception.” See MPEP §2106.07(a)(III). As such, Berkheimer evidence is not required for identifying which elements of the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 and do not require Berkheimer evidence under Step 2B since said limitations are not insignificant extra-solution activity and thus do not require a well-understood, routine, and conventional analysis.
Step 2A Prong Two analysis for Claims 21-24
Applicant argues that Claim 21 imposes meaningful limits on the claimed data processing by structurally restricting which data may be accessed, aggregated, and included in the output, and by preventing commingling of heterogeneous data types at the storage and output levels. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The storage of data amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity as further explained in the instant Office Action. Regarding the retrieval of data: “The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula such as the Arrhenius equation). See, e.g., Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971 (claims directed to "narrow laws that may have limited applications" held ineligible); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197 (claims that did not "wholly preempt the mathematical formula" held ineligible).” See MPEP 2106.04(I). Narrowing the judicial exception to the particular use case or context applicant describes does not negate the fact that the claim(s) recites and/or describes a judicial exception. The retrieval of data according to data requirements amounts to no more than a further narrowing of the recited abstract idea of risk insight and compliance with regulations.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible for reasons similar to Example 42. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Example 42, the claims described medical records that were stored in a non-standard format selected by whichever hardware or software platform is in use in the medical provider’s local office. These medical records were shared among medical providers which were often-times incomplete since records in separate locations are not timely or readily-shared or cannot be consolidated due to format inconsistencies. Claim 1 recited a combination of additional elements which converted non-standardized form information to a standardized format. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Applicant’s claims are not converting non-standardized form information to a standardized format but rather are changing/partitioning the content of the data. The instant claims are not analogous to Example 42.
Applicant further asserts that during the interview Examiner indicated a view that Example 42 is “about format”. Examiner once again notes this does not appear on either the Office’s or the Applicant’s own record of the interview. Given such absence any and all of applicant’s arguments regarding such an assertion are moot.
Applicant further argues that the specification describes transforming of data formats via transform pipelines. Examiner notes the claims do not recite transforming pipelines and do not recite transformation of data. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein the transaction insights are derived based only on collected data of the data types permitted by a specific legal framework selected based on the use case” of Claim 11 is implicitly fulfilled if an analysis is compliant with a data privacy legal framework selected based on the use case.
Examiner notes that Claims 3 and 14 are equivalent in function to determining and storing an entity’s applicable regulatory rule logic.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and system for risk insight utility for traditional finance and decentralized finance. These are a process, article of manufacture, and machine which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are found in claim(s) 1, 12 and 16:
Claim(s) 1, 12 and 16:
“…wherein the transaction insights API is one of at least an anti-money laundering API and a fraud prevention API,…”
“determining that the inquiring entity is permitted to access the transaction insights for the use case associated with the transactions insights API;”
“analyzing,…, the aggregated data to derive the transaction insights including at least one risk insight score and at least one reason code associated with the at least one risk insight score;”
“generating a data pack of the transaction insights based on the rule set and the use case;”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Concepts Performed in the Human Mind or Fundamental Economic Principles of Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an API”, “a processor”, “a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:”, or “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Concepts Performed in the Human Mind or Fundamental Economic Principles of Practices. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes an Evaluation or could reasonably describe Mitigating Risk. An Evaluation is described when determining legally approved data and determining transaction insights. Mitigating Risk is described when determining a Risk Score based on applicable laws. If a claim limitation, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Concepts Performed in the Human Mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles of Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11, 13-19 and 21-24 are directed to the following:
Claim(s) 2 and 13:
“onboarding the inquiring entity prior to receiving the API communication to associate the inquiring entity with permitted user use cases, wherein onboarding comprises: determining an identifier associated with the inquiring entity, the identifier including at least one of a routing number, an account number, an employer identification number, and a name of the inquiring entity;… determining that the inquiring entity is a regulated entity when the inquiring entity appears in the database and that the inquiring entity is not a regulated entity when the entity does not appear in the database.”
Claim(s) 3 and 14:
“determining at least one permitted use case for the inquiring entity based on whether the inquiring entity is present in the first database of regulated entities or the second database of regulated entities;”
“wherein the inquiring entity is a regulated entity, wherein the database of regulated entities includes a first database of regulated entities and a second database of regulated entities, wherein the first database of regulated entities is correlated with a first use case and the second database of regulated entities is correlated with a second use case,”
Claim(s) 4 and 15:
“…wherein the data types defined by the rule set associated with the use case include blockchain data and traditional transaction data.”
Claim(s) 5 and 17:
“…wherein the API communication calling the transaction insights API includes a session key, the session key identifying a customer identifier for the inquiring entity.”
Claim(s) 6 and 18:
“confirming that an account database includes the at least one permitted user case for the inquiring entity.”
Claim(s) 7:
“…wherein the data pack is customized to include selected data, and wherein at least a portion of the selected data can only be utilized for particular use cases.”
Claim(s) 8 and 19:
“…to provide a respective risk score for each of the past transactions,…”
“…decrease the respective risk score for a particular transaction when the respective status indicates that the particular transaction is successful, and to maintain the respective risk score for the particular transaction when the respective status indicates that the particular transaction was returned, and to increase the respective risk score for the particular transaction when the respective status indicates that the particular transaction was fraudulent.”
Claim(s) 9:
“…wherein the plurality of inquiring entities and databases include at least one blockchain entity and one financial institution.”
Claim(s) 11:
“…wherein the transaction insights are derived based only on collected data of the data types permitted by a specific legal framework selected based on the use case.”
Claim(s) 21:
“…wherein aggregating the data comprises retrieving data from one or more of the plurality of data partitions being associated with one or more of the plurality of data types applicable to the use case associated with the transaction insights API, and wherein generating the data pack comprises generating the data pack exclusively from the aggregated data retrieved from the one or more of the plurality of data partitions.”
Claim(s) 22:
“…wherein the data pack further includes at least one of a maximum risk score, an average risk score, or a fraud indicator indicating whether fraud was identified in one or more transactions associated with the subject entity, and wherein the at least one reason code is attributed to one or more highest risk aspects contributing to the at least one risk insight score.”
Claim(s) 23:
“…after providing the data pack of the transaction insights in the responsive communication to the inquiring entity, receiving feedback information from the inquiring entity via the transaction insights API, the feedback information indicating at least one of (i) a decision rendered by the inquiring entity regarding the subject entity or (ii) a status of the transaction, and retraining a machine learning model used to derive the at least one risk insight score based at least in part on the feedback information.”
Claim(s) 24:
“…by the inquiring entity and based at least in part on the at least one risk insight score, blocking or denying authorization of the transaction specified by the transaction data.”
These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claim which are directed to a judicial exception. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they are directed to abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following additional elements:
Claim(s) 1, 12 and 16:
“receiving an Application Programming Interface (API) communication calling a transaction insights API of a plurality of transaction insights API, wherein individual APIs of the plurality of transaction insights APIs are specific to respective use cases,… the API communication includes parameters of inquiring entity data, subject entity data, access device data for an access device of the subject entity, and transaction data, wherein the transaction data specifies a transaction network for the transaction;”
“collecting data across a plurality of inquiring entities, blockchains, and third-party platforms through one or more scripts deployed on the plurality of inquiring entities and third-party platforms to yield collected data, wherein the one or more scripts are configured to capture usage data as users access the plurality of inquiring entities and third-party platforms;”
“aggregating data from a portion of the collected data associated with the subject entity for the parameters defined in the API communication to yield aggregated data, the aggregated data being of data types defined by a rule set and is associated with the subject entity;”
“…by an AI/ML service…”
“providing the data pack of the transaction insights in a responsive communication to the inquiring entity.”
Claim 12:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to:”
Claim 16:
“a processor;”
“a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:”
The computer components or other machinery (processor and non-transitory memory) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor, and generic storage) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer or using machinery as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The receiving, collecting, aggregating and providing step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generally receiving, generally collecting, generally aggregating and generally providing) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of API and AI/ML is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 6, 8, 10, 13-14, and 18-21 contain the following additional elements:
Claim(s) 2 and 13:
“performing a lookup on the inquiring entity using the identifier in a database of regulated entities;”
Claim(s) 3 and 14:
“storing the permitted use case for the inquiring entity in an account database.”
Claim(s) 6 and 18:
“extracting the customer identifier from the session key;”
Claim(s) 8 and 19:
“training a machine learning model to receive past transactions on the network…”
“inputting the past transactions into the machine learning model;”
“inputting feedback information associated with each of the past transactions into the machine learning model, wherein the feedback information indicates a respective status for each of the past transactions, wherein the respective status indicates whether each of the past transactions was successful, returned, or fraudulent;”
“training the machine learning model to…”
Claim(s) 10 and 20:
“receiving, from the inquiring entity, a decision regarding the subject entity based at least in part on the data pack of transaction insights.”
Claim 21:
“…further comprising storing the collected data into a plurality of data partitions respectively associated with a plurality of data types,…”
The performing a lookup, storing, extracting step(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as simply performing a lookup, simply storing, simply extracting) such that they amount to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The processor mentioned above is/are disclosed in applicant’s specification (See paragraph [0117] of the specification). The component is described as:
“Processor 710 can include any general purpose processor and a hardware service or software service, such as services 732, 734, and 736 stored in storage device 730, configured to control processor 710 as well as a special-purpose processor where software instructions are incorporated into the actual processor design. Processor 710 may essentially be a completely self-contained computing system, containing multiple cores or processors, a bus, memory controller, cache, etc. A multi-core processor may be symmetric or asymmetric.”
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium mentioned above is/are disclosed in applicant’s specification (See paragraph [0119] of the specification). The component is described as:
“Storage device 730 can be a non-volatile memory device and can be a hard disk or other types of computer readable media which can store data that are accessible by a computer, such as magnetic cassettes, flash memory cards, solid state memory devices, digital versatile disks, cartridges, random access memories (RAMs), read-only memory (ROM), and/or some combination of these devices.”
Therefore applicant’s own specification supports these components as generic computer components.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for storing/extracting/performing a lookup on /aggregating various data) Storing and retrieving information in memory, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
(for receiving/collecting/providing/aggregating various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes a search was performed for the claims however prior art was not found which in combination teaches all the limitations of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (US 2024/0045989 A1) discloses data aggregation and processing with respect to data privacy for financial inquiries.
Chen et al. (US 2021/0326865 A1) discloses collection of transaction insights used for providing restricted data based on access rules.
Zhang et al. (US 2020/0314101 A1) discloses analyzing data to provide risk scores and reason codes for transactions.
Witteman et al. (US 2024/0242211 A1) discloses that information of registered corporations may be publicly available (i.e. performing a lookup) and said entities may be regulated.
Biorge (US 2023/0096124 A1) discloses APIs that include session information for transactions that may include session keys which include session-based user identifiers for both the buyer and the seller (i.e. inquiring entity) that may be used during said transaction (i.e. said data may be extracted from said session keys).
Weber (US 10,867,304 B2) discloses the usage of APIs and scripting for transaction fraud rule assessment.
Tomasofsky et al. (US 2016/0078444 A1) discloses databases with partitions being separate from each other, but does not disclose partitioning by data type.
Glazer et al. (“Bargaining for your privacy in the information age: Systematic factors undermining the equity of user-company online information transactions”) discloses management of regulated data.
Karantzis (WO 2018/090099 A1) discloses determining a financial institution by use of a commercially or publicly available database.
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 ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3691
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights