Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of December 22, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 8-9 and 14 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 8-9 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Examiner has considered the applicant's arguments. The rejection of claim 8, and dependent claims 9 and 14, under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained. Applicant's reliance on comparisons to USPTO Example 47 and Finjan does not overcome the analysis required by the Supreme Court's Alice framework. The appropriate legal standard is the two step framework established by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. While Applicant's references to USPTO examples and Federal Circuit case law are noted, the ultimate determination of patent eligibility must be grounded in the Alice framework as applied to the claimed invention. Claim 8 is directed to the abstract idea of fraud detection and call routing based on evaluated criteria. The additional limitations recited in the amendment including tracking call frequency, detecting multi account patterns, performing coordinated database queries, evaluating weighted parameters using an AI model, and initiating response measures describe the automation of this abstract idea using data gathering, analysis, and decision making steps. The focus of the claim remains on the collection and analysis of information, such as call data, account data, and fraud alerts, to assess risk and route a call, which is a fundamental business practice. Considered both individually and in combination, the additional elements do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application. The claim recites the use of standard computer components, such as a processor and databases, and generic computing functions, including tracking, querying, storing, evaluating, applying logic, and initiating actions, to perform the abstract idea. The specification of data sources, such as a call log database, customer account database, and fraud alert database, along with temporal windows like a current calendar day and a twelve month lookback, and a list of parameters to evaluate constitutes a particular implementation of the abstract idea using conventional technology. The recitation of an AI model that modifies parameter weightings over time is a high level statement of using adaptive logic or machine learning to improve the accuracy of the underlying abstract fraud detection and routing decision. This does not alter the core principle being applied. The claim does not recite any specific improvement to the operation of the IVR system itself or to computer technology beyond its use as a tool to execute the abstract process more efficiently or accurately. The claim details a process for making a determination, such as a fraud risk score, and then performing one of several listed outcomes based on that determination. The final initiated actions, like canceling a card, sending a notification, or transferring a call, are themselves standard, well known business or telecommunications responses. Therefore, the claim elements, including the coordinated real time queries, weighted parameter evaluation with AI, and conditional routing logic, amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. They do not represent an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application.
3. The previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112a and b are withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims, however new rejections under 35 USC 112a and b are in the instant action addressing the newly amended claims.
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.
4. Claims 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of preventing fraud and providing customer service without significantly more.
Claim 8 is directed to a method which is one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 8 recites “method for operating an … associated with a call center, the method comprising:
tracking, using a …, call frequency data by capturing automatic number identification (ANI) data for incoming calls and storing the ANI data in …, wherein the tracking comprises configuring call count threshold for more than five calls received from a same ANI within a current calendar day;
detecting, using the …, multi-account access
patterns by querying the … to determine whether calls associated with the
ANI of an incoming call have inquired about accounts of more than two distinct customers;
that one or more parameters are true:
performing, using the …, coordinated … database
queries across multiple data sources in response to the incoming call, wherein the
coordinated … database queries comprise:
querying the … to retrieve call frequency data
associated with the ANI of the incoming call;
querying a … to retrieve phone numbers
associated with a customer account identified during the incoming call;
querying a … to retrieve fraud alerts generated
within a twelve-month lookback window that are associated with the ANI of the incoming
call or the customer account;
evaluating, using the …, a plurality of parameters based on
data retrieved from the coordinated … database queries, wherein the plurality of
parameters comprise:
whether a request the incoming call is associated with a possibility of fraud, said request comprising at least one of:
a report of a damaged credit card; and a request to change an address associated with the customer account;
whether an authorization method provided by the incoming call comprises at least one of: an account number; and a postal code;
whether a fraud alert has been generated in the twelve-month lookback window which is associated with the ANI of the incoming call or with the customer account;
whether a failed authorization attempt in the twelve-month lookback window is associated with the ANI of the incoming call or the customer account; and
whether the ANI of the incoming call is different from any phone numbers associated with the customer account; and
assigning, using the …, each parameter a weighting based
on correlation of that parameter to fraudulent activity, wherein one parameter has a stronger
correlation to fraudulent activity than another parameter;
applying, using the …, conditional routing logic that
determines an overall score based on measurement of the parameters and each parameter's
relative weighting;
using an … to modify the weighting of each
parameter over time;
initiating, using the … during the incoming call, a fraud
prevention response measure in real time,
when the overall score exceeds a predetermined threshold, said fraud prevention response measure comprising:
canceling a credit card associated with the customer account and
reissuing a new credit card to an address associated with the customer account; or
transmitting a notification containing a fraud alert against the ANI,
the customer account, or both the ANI and customer account to an organization
administering the call center; and
initiating, using the …, during the …, a customer service response measure in … when the overall score is below the predetermined threshold said customer service response measure comprising: transferring the incoming call into a queue to speak with a customer
service representative; or
transferring the incoming call into a higher position in the queue
to speak with a customer service representative than the incoming call would have received otherwise”. These limitations describe an abstract idea of preventing fraud and providing customer service and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
5. The claim also recites as additional elements such as “interactive voice response system, computer processor coupled to the IVR system, call log database, real-time, customer account database, fraud alert database, conditional routing logic, artificial intelligence model, initiating using the computer processor, during the incoming call” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 8 is recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
6. Further, as the additional elements of claim 8 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
7. Claim 14 recite “wherein said, fraud prevention response measure further comprises: detecting, using the …, if an account of another customer was accessed by the …; and detecting, using the … if fraud was committed as a result” which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 14 recites “the computer processor as an additional element. The additional element of claim 14 does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
8. Claim 9 recites “wherein: the weak authorization method provided is a postal code” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
9. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
10. Claims 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Lack of Algorithm
11. Claim 8 recites “using an artificial intelligence (AI) model to modify the weighting of each parameter over time". However, the specification does not provide details on what the limitation, “using an artificial intelligence (AI)”, comprises. In other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed. (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I) (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I).
12. Claims 9 and 14 are rejected as each depends on claim 8.
13. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
14. Claims 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
15. Claim 8 recites "… have inquired about accounts of more than two distinct customers": The term "inquired about" is indefinite. It is unclear what specific caller actions or system interactions constitute an "inquiry" about an account, leaving the bounds of the claimed detection step ambiguous.
16. Claim 8 recites " coordinated real-time database queries." The term "coordinated" is indefinite in this context. It is unclear how the queries are coordinated, whether they must be simultaneous, sequential, interdependent, or merely performed in the same processing thread. This lack of clarity leaves the scope of this step uncertain.
17. Claims 9 and 14 are rejected as each depends on claim 8.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618