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
Applicant's “Amendment” filed on 10/23/2025 has been considered.
Rejection to Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 have not been overcome.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9, 11-12, 15-16, 18 are amended.
Claim 4 is cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-3, 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (see MPEP § 2106 Subsection III), it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, including:
A computer system for multi-stage residual modeling for authorizing an online user, the computer system comprising:
at least one memory device; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory device, the at least one processor programmed to:
store a plurality of models for analyzing transactions including a first model and a second model;
receive, during an ongoing card-not-present transaction, a plurality of authorization data associated with the ongoing card-not-present transaction and with a plurality of interactions between a user and a virtual transaction interface and a transaction associated with the user;
retrieve a first model of the plurality of models based on a selected key driver data element of the authorization data execute in real-time the first model using the plurality of authorization data to receive a first output for the first model;
when the first output is within an output range and does meet a threshold, define the first output as a final output without executing a further model of the plurality of models;
when the first output is within the output range and does not meet the threshold:
identify a data gap from the execution of the first model based on the first output;
determine a remainder between the first output and the threshold;
retrieve a second model of the plurality of models;
calibrate the second model using the remainder such that the second model is programmed to generate a second output with the remainder as an output target;
execute the second model that is calibrated using the remainder to fill the data gap, the second model executed on using the plurality of authorization data and programmed to generate a second output; and
combine the first output and the second output to generate the final output; and
return in real-time the final output for decisioning on whether to authorize the ongoing card-not-present transaction.
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations as emphasized, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, “store, receive, retrieve, define, identify, determine, retrieve, calibrate, execute, combine, and return” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
The claim recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), including:
A computer system for multi-stage residual modeling for authorizing an online user, the computer system comprising:
at least one memory device; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory device, the at least one processor programmed to:
store a plurality of models for analyzing transactions including a first model and a second model;
receive, during an ongoing card-not-present transaction, a plurality of authorization data associated with the ongoing card-not-present transaction and with a plurality of interactions between a user and a virtual transaction interface and a transaction associated with the user;
retrieve a first model of the plurality of models based on a selected key driver data element of the authorization data execute in real-time the first model using the plurality of authorization data to receive a first output for the first model;
when the first output is within an output range and does meet a threshold, define the first output as a final output without executing a further model of the plurality of models;
when the first output is within the output range and does not meet the threshold:
identify a data gap from the execution of the first model based on the first output;
determine a remainder between the first output and the threshold;
retrieve a second model of the plurality of models;
calibrate the second model using the remainder such that the second model is programmed to generate a second output with the remainder as an output target;
execute the second model that is calibrated using the remainder to fill the data gap, the second model executed on using the plurality of authorization data and programmed to generate a second output; and
combine the first output and the second output to generate the final output; and
return in real-time the final output for decisioning on whether to authorize the ongoing card-not-present transaction.
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.) Specifically, the additional element of at least one memory device, at least one processor, a plurality of models, a first model, a second model, a card-not-present transaction, and a virtual transaction interface, is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of connecting to a platform on a network) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements to no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). For example, stating that the second model is calibrated using the remainder as an output target and executed using the remainder to fill the data gap, only generally links the commercial interactions and management of relationships or interactions between people to a computer environment. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of system claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Therefore, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept and does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claim 11 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 1, and does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons.
Claim 18 is a computer readable medium reciting similar functions as claim 1, and does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons.
Claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are dependencies of claims 1, 11 and 18. The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. They recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, including:
wherein the plurality of authorization data further includes a plurality of authentication data collected from a user computing device during an online interaction for authenticating the user. (only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment)
wherein, when the combined first output and second output does not meet the threshold, the at least one processor is further programmed to: determine a second remainder based on the first output, the second output, and the output range; execute a third model of the plurality of models using the plurality of authorization data and the second remainder to generate a third output; and combine the first output, the second output, and the third output to generate the final output. (only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment, no details are recited describing any steps involved in executing a third model)
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to cause a step-up challenge to be displayed to the user via a user computer device if the final score meets another threshold level.. (sales activities or behaviors)
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the present claims are directed to improving securing in a card-not-present transaction by applying particular models to an ongoing transaction, the models selected and executed based on specific aspects of the card-not-present transaction.
As discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection above, the claims are directed to methods of organizing human activity including a commercial interaction.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicant’s specification provides the following regarding how to improve security by applying models to an ongoing transaction:
“the multi-stage residual modeling (MSRM) process that may be used for the authentication process enables authenticating the user as a legitimate user of secure application, or of a payment account or log-in credentials at remote website, based on interactions captured passively (e.g., captured during independent, routine activity of the user and without prompting or requiring authentication-specific actions by the user) by a passive authentication requestor, avoiding the requirement by conventional systems to ask additional questions of the user (e.g., as part of a step-up challenge) or request additional, authentication-specific inputs (e.g., facial scan) from the user. Thus, the authentication process enables authentication of the user to be maintained without diverting computing resources of computing device for multiple active authentications. The authentication process also reduces or eliminates friction inherent in the conventional authentication process.” (Spec, [0040]) and
“perform additional authentication (e.g., by issuing a step-up challenge to the cardholder) for the transaction, based on at least one of a risk score, the risk analysis, and the reason codes. If the transaction is medium risk, the authentication platform may issue a step-up challenge to the cardholder. Based on the results of the step-up challenge, the authentication platform may approve or deny the transaction. In some embodiments, if the transaction is medium risk, the authentication platform transmits the analysis result data to the ACS, so that the ACS will perform the step-up challenge. In other embodiments, the authentication platform may take different steps at different risk levels and have additional or fewer risk levels to analyze based on the authentication profile.” (Spec, [0041-0042])
“using an MSRM-enabled server and MSRM engine to perform an assessment and generate results based on multi-stage residual modeling to determine a fraud score and to forward the results based on the MSRM result data to the issuer computer device to enable the issuer computer device to make an authorization decision.” (Spec, [0047]
“since it is assumed model one is the key driver, for model two the target is the gaps between model one's prediction and the ground truth. Enhancement and collaboration can be seen because if model one makes a perfect prediction, there is no room for an improvement and model two is not stepping. Because in this case, the co-efficiency in an ideal situation would be zero which still keeps the perfect prediction from the key driver. Unless, there is a gap between model one's prediction and ground truth. For example, if a target is 999 and model one has 800 as the prediction, there is a gap of 199. This will be the target of additional signals to mitigate these gaps. If the second model makes a prediction of 190, then prediction is totaled, because they will be summed up eventually. It would be about 990 compared to the ground truth 999, which is closer. That is a difference between the traditional approach and the multi- stage residual modeling approach. For example, in the traditional approach, if model one makes a prediction of 800, then model two makes a prediction of 199, then the arbitrator may work to determine a blended score coming out of these two predictions because of the opposite risk levels of these two models compared against the ground truth or actual fraud. The two predictions have different opinions. However, there is no such competition conflict in the residual model approach, as long as there is a gap, a residual and model two steps in, otherwise key drivers are kept in untouched or ideal scenarios.” (Spec, [0098]
Similar to Affinity Labs, the specification fails to provide details regarding the manner in which the application of models for improving security is actually accomplished, and there is no indication that applying models improves the functioning of a computer or a technical field. The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. "Claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO
Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific improvement to the technical field of electronic transaction processing. Applicant argues that the use of a particular multi-stage residual modeling approach that leverages a gap to meet a required threshold to improve transaction authentication/authorization and thereby better ensure security of the computer network describe specific systems and methods that provide technical improvements to the technical field of electronic transaction processing.
Examiner notes that transaction processing is being interpreted as a method of organizing human activity, specifically a commercial interaction, applied in a particular technological environment using a particular method. Even a very specific abstract idea, applied in a particular technological environment is still an abstract idea until it is applied in a practical application. Applying specific transaction methods using particular technologies only generally applies the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and does not integrate it into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that selecting and executing in real time specific models on authorization data based on one or more elements of that authorization data as well as whether one model sufficiently authenticates an ongoing card-not-present transaction enhances security by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusions, similar to Example 47.
Examiner disagrees. Claim 3 of example 47 uses the ANN to detect anomalies in network traffic, determines that they correspond to malicious packets and detect their source address in real time, blocking future traffic from that source address.. The detection and determinations involved in the claim are mental process abstract ideas, but the subsequent specific technological remediation is what integrates it into a practical application. In the case of the instant claims, receiving authorization data and executing models in real time on the authorization data to determine whether it sufficiently authenticates an ongoing transaction is an abstract idea. However, an improved or faster analysis, in real time, is not the same as the technological improvement recited in the Example 47 claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
R. F. Olanrewaju, B. U. I. Khan, M. A. Morshidi, F. Anwar and M. L. B. M. Kiah, "A Frictionless and Secure User Authentication in Web-Based Premium Applications," in IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 129240-129255, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3110310. Olanrewaju describes that The profiler uses user behavioral data, including login session time, device location, browser, and details of accessed web services. The system processes these data and generates a user profile via a profiler using the authenticator function. The authenticator provides a login mechanism to the user to perform the authentication process. After successful login attempts, the proposed system updates database for future evaluation in the authentication process. (abstract). Olanrewaju does not teach the claims as a whole.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Michelle T. Kringen whose telephone number is (571)270-0159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571)272-6764. 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.
/MICHELLE T KRINGEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights