DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 21, 31, and 38 have been amended.
Claims 21-40 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection:
Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed towards Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity but rather is directed towards “a computer-implemented process that performs… updating the score in realtime” on pg. 15 of the remarks received 19 November 2025. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner asserts that the limitations of the claim reciting: “determining, by the one or more processors, authorization of the at least one transaction based, at least in part, on the user-specific abandonment score” at least is directed towards the authorization of an economic transaction which is clearly a function that can be categorized as one whose sole purpose is to mitigate risk associated with said financial transaction by only approving said transaction when appropriate based on an abandonment score. The remainder of the claim is additionally directed towards functions of gathering, manipulating, and processing collected data for the sole purpose of calculating said abandonment score to determine this authorization. Thus, the claims clearly recite an abstract idea.
Applicant additionally asserts that the additionally elements of the claims provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer i.e. integrate the recited abstract idea into practical application because the claimed method improves the system’s functionality by optimizing data transformation, reducing processing latency, and increasing the precision and speed of transaction authorization decision on pg. 17 of the remarks received 19 November 2025. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner asserts that the improvements outlined by applicant do not constitute improvements to the functioning of the computer itself but rather improvements to the business method of collecting and processing information necessary to authorize an economic transaction. Specifically, the examiner asserts that none of the described “technical solutions” require any computation ability beyond that of a generic computing device but rather are simply directed towards the order and specificity of the data gathered and processed. In other words, these improvements in efficiency, latency, and precision/speed remain present even if the claimed method were performed without the use of a generic computer. Thus, as the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer but rather an improvement in the recited abstract idea itself, the examiner must reassert that the claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into practical application.
Applicant additionally asserts sections of the Berkheimer Memo were not addressed by the examiner in the previous office actions. However, regardless of the merit of said assertion, the examiner asserts that even if the elements specified in the previously cited office action could be considered to not be well-understood, routine, or conventional in nature, the examiner continues to reassert that said elements are directed towards the recited abstract idea itself i.e. collecting and processing data for the purpose of mitigating risk associated with an economic transaction. While the specific sequence of steps used to perform the abstract idea could not be reasonably taught by the prior art of record, the examine reasserts that performing said sequence of steps using a generic computer merely amounts to simply generally linking the recited abstract idea to the technical field of computerized data gathering and processing and thus so not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, based on the rationale provided above as well as 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 21-40 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 21-30 are directed to a method, claims 31-37 are directed to an system/apparatus comprising a data storage device and a processor, 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 11 recites the following:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
Receiving, by one or more processors, an authorization request for at least one transaction from a device associated with a user;
retrieving, by the one or more processors, user information, device information, and account information associated with the at least one transaction;
processing, by the one or more processors, the retrieved information to determine transaction history associated with the user;
identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more authorization requests associated with a first payment vehicle of the user;
generating, by the one or more processors, a unique hash and a fraud analysis profile request;
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the fraud analysis profile request including the unique hash to a data importer for generating the fraud analysis profile;
determining, by the one or more processors, transaction data for the one or more authorization requests is associated with a second payment vehicle of the user, wherein the transaction data includes a second authorization request;
isolating, by the one or more processors, (i) one or more transactions, from the transaction data, associated with a plurality of payment vehicles including the first and second payment vehicles indicating a switching pattern between the plurality of payment vehicles, and (ii) the one or more transactions associated with the one or more authorization requests that are not paired with payment authorizations indicating abandoned transactions
calculating, by the one or more processors, the user-specific abandonment score based, at least in part, on the determined transaction data associated with the second payment vehicle, wherein the determined transaction data includes the switching pattern of the plurality of payment vehicles by the user;
dynamically adjusting, by the one or more processors, the user-specific abandonment score, in real-time, based on detected instances and frequency of the switching pattern between the plurality of payment vehicles;
transforming, by the one or more processors, historical data associated with the fraud analysis profile request by performing one or more of data cleaning, data splitting, data translating, data merging, or data sorting to generate structured data in a standard format for analysis; and
determining, by the one or more processors, authorization of the at least one transaction based, at least in part, on the user-specific abandonment 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 the process of mitigating risk in 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 settlement 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 “one or more processors” and a “device associated with a user” merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the “one or more processors” and “device associated with a user” 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 “one or more processors” and a ”device associated with a user” 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 “one or more processors” and “device associated with a user” 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 settlement risk in 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.
Independent claims 31 and 38 recite similar subject matter to independent claim 21 with the inclusion of the additional elements of a “non-transitory computer readable medium”, a “processor”, and a “server”. Thus, similarly to independent claim 21, the additional elements recited in claims 31 and 38 merely use a computer as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea of risk mitigation and do not integrate the recited abstract idea into practical application nor amount to significantly more than simply performing the abstract idea using a generic computer. Thus, claims 31 and 38 are rejected under 35 USC 101 based upon rationale similar to that applied to claim 21.
Dependent claims 22-30, 32-37, and 39-40 further describe the recited abstract idea. 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 22, 32, and 39 merely further describes how to abandonment score used to mitigate risk in the transaction is determined.
Claims 23, 33, and 40 recite additional limitations which are directed towards the abstract idea of mitigating risk in an economic transaction.
Claims 24 and 34 merely further describes how to abandonment score used to mitigate risk in the transaction is determined.
Claims 25 and 35 recite additional limitations which are directed towards the abstract idea of mitigating risk in an economic transaction.
Claims 26 and 36 recite additional limitations which are directed towards the abstract idea of mitigating risk in an economic transaction.
Claims 27 and 37 recite additional limitations which are directed towards the abstract idea of mitigating risk in an economic transaction.
Claim 28 recites additional limitations which are directed towards steps required to perform the recited abstract idea of mitigating risk in an economic transaction.
Claim 29 recites additional limitations which are directed towards the abstract idea as well as merely further describing the risk score used to perform the recited abstract idea of risk mitigation.
Claim 30 recites additional limitations which are either directed to recited abstract idea of risk mitigation or are directed towards steps required to perform the recited abstract idea of mitigating risk in an economic transaction.
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.
Kohli (US 20180158129 A1) generally discloses a metadata capture computing device used to detect abandoned products in customer carts at a merchant website.
Matteson et al. (US 20170345007 A1) generally discloses a computer-implemented method for performing a secondary stand-in payment authorization after a first primary payment method has failed.
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
/COURTNEY P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699