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 relay filed on 07/31/2025. Claim 4-6, and 14 is withdrawn . Claims 17-20 are cancelled. Claims 1- 4 , 7-13, and 15-16 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, 7-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, claims 1 and 1 1 are directed to a method, and system. Claim 1 recites “ Detecting fraudulent activities in transactions ” which is a grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Claim 1 1 recites “ detecting, …, initiation of an financial transaction across a … to an account having an account identifier”, “querying, … in response to the detecting, the account identifier to determine if the account is associated with fraudulent activity”, and ”if the account is associated with the fraudulent activity, causing, … a fraud warning … prior to the electronic financial transaction being completed. ” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 such as “ …a with a communication device of an electronic device in communication with at least one remote electronic device … electronic… network… ”, “ by one or more processors of the electronic device”, “…by the one or more processors, the communication device to… transmit … to the remote electronic device … ” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. 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 into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of Detecting fraudulent activities in transactions . Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible. The additional elements of claim 2 such as “ a n electronic device, comprising”, “a communication device”, “one or more processors operable with the communication device; ” and “ … the communication device… at least one remote electronic device comprising an electronic device… by the at least one remote electronic device, the one or more processors… the electronic device… ”, and “… electronic device … one or more processors cause the communication device to… least one remote electronic device ” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. Hence, claim 11 is not patent eligible. Claim 2 recites “ wherein the initiation of the electronic financial transaction occurs in response to … received by the … identifier. ” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “… an electronic communication… at least one remote electronic device from at least one other remote electronic device having an electronic device ” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field. Claim 3 recites “ wherein the querying comprises utilizing a functional database to determine whether … identifier has been associated with past fraudulent activity. ” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “n… he electronic device… ” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field. Claim 4 recites “ further comprising determining that … identifier has been associated with the past fraudulent activity when … having a quantity exceeding a predefined threshold has transmitted … indicating that… is suspected of being used fraudulently. ” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “… the electronic device… a plurality of remote electronic devices in communication with the electronic device… electronic communications to the communication device… the electronic device identifier ” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field. Claim 7 recites “f urther comprising determining that … identifier has been associated with the fraudulent activity when t…identifier is associated with a falsified account number or personal identification number. ” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “… the electronic device… he electronic device… ” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field. Claim 8 recites “ wherein the fraud warning comprises a prompt presented …. ” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “n… on a user interface of the at least one remote electronic device ” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field. Claim 9 recites “ wherein the prompt provides additional details about the past fraudulent activity. ” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. Claim 10 recites “ wherein the prompt provides a user actuation target allowing the electronic financial transaction to be terminated. ” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. Claim 12 recites “ wherein the prompt includes a user actuation target that, when actuated, terminates a financial transaction associated with the financial transaction initiation communication. ” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. Claim 13 recites “ further comprising a memory operable with the one or more processors, the memory storing a functional database of device identifiers associated with fraudulent activity. ” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “ further comprising a memory operable with the one or more processors, the memory… ” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field. Claim 15 recites “ wherein the … identifiers associated with the fraudulent activity are determined by a number of … reporting the …identifiers are associated with the fraudulent activity exceeds a predefined threshold. ” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “… device… electronic communications… ” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field. Claim 16 recites “ wherein the device identifiers associated with the fraudulent activity are determined when the …identifiers are associated with falsified account or personal identification numbers. ” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “… device… ” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lowenberg et al (US 2018/0101851 A1). Regarding claim 1 A method, comprising: detecting, with a communication device of an electronic device in communication with at least one remote electronic device, initiation of an electronic financial transaction across a network to an account having an account identifier; (See at least Lowerberg [0048] In step 302, the receiving device 202 of the processing server 102 may receive an authorization request for a payment transaction, such as via the payment rails associated with the payment network 112. The authorization request may be a transaction message that is formatted pursuant to one or more standards, such as the ISO 8583 or ISO 20022 standards, that includes a message type indicator indicative of an authorization request. The authorization request may include a plurality of data elements including at least a first data element configured to store a device identifier associated with the computing device 104 used to initiate the payment transaction, a second data element configured to store a primary account number associated with a transaction account to be used to fund the payment transaction, and one or more additional data elements configured to store additional transaction data.) querying, by one or more processors of the electronic device in response to the detecting, the account identifier to determine if the account is associated with fraudulent activity; and (See at least Lowerberg [0049] In step 304, the querying module 210 of the processing server 102 may execute a query on the transaction database 206 to identify a plurality of transaction data entries 208 related to payment transactions that involved the same computing device 104. The transaction data entries 208 may each include a device identifier that corresponds to the device identifier stored in the first data element included in the received authorization request. In some instances, the generation module 214 of the processing server 102 may first generate a tokenized value using the device identifier parsed from the authorization request, which may be used to identify the transaction data entries 208. if the account is associated with the fraudulent activity, causing, by the one or more processors, the communication device to transmit a fraud warning to the remote electronic device prior to the electronic financial transaction being completed. (See at least Lowerberg [0051] In step 308, the transmitting device 216 of the processing server 102 may electronically transmit the authorization request and determined fraud risk rating to the issuing institution 108 associated with the transaction account used in the payment transaction. In some embodiments, the querying module 210 may execute a query to insert the fraud risk rating into a corresponding data element included in the authorization request prior to forwarding. In other embodiments, the transmitting device 216 may electronically transmit separate data signals to the issuing institution 108. In still other embodiments, the transmitting device 216 may electronically transmit a single data signal to the issuing institution 108 that includes both the authorization request and the separate fraud risk rating. The issuing institution 108 may then authorize or decline the payment transaction based on at least the determined fraud risk rating. Regarding claim 2 The method of claim 1, wherein the initiation of the electronic financial transaction occurs in response to an electronic communication received by the at least one remote electronic device from at least one other remote electronic device having an electronic device identifier. (See at least Lowerberg [0047] – [0048]: [0047] FIG. 3 illustrates a process 300 for the determination of a fraud risk rating for a payment transaction initiated via a computing device 104 that is based on usage of the computing device 104 in additional payment transactions.[0048] In step 302, the receiving device 202 of the processing server 102 may receive an authorization request for a payment transaction, such as via the payment rails associated with the payment network 112. The authorization request may be a transaction message that is formatted pursuant to one or more standards, such as the ISO 8583 or ISO 20022 standards, that includes a message type indicator indicative of an authorization request. The authorization request may include a plurality of data elements including at least a first data element configured to store a device identifier associated with the computing device 104 used to initiate the payment transaction, a second data element configured to store a primary account number associated with a transaction account to be used to fund the payment transaction, and one or more additional data elements configured to store additional transaction data. Regarding claim 3 wherein the querying comprises utilizing a functional database to determine whether the electronic device identifier has been associated with past fraudulent activity. (See at least Lowerberg [0055] In step 406, a query may be executed on the transaction database by a querying module (e.g., the querying module 210) of the processing server to identify one or more transaction data entries where the included device identifier corresponds to the specific device identifier stored in the first data element included in the received transaction message. In step 408, a fraud risk rating may be determined by a determination module (e.g., the determination module 212) of the processing server based on at least a number of unique account identifiers included in the identified one or more transaction data entries over a predetermined period of time and the primary account number stored in the second data element included in the received transaction message. In step 410, at least the received transaction message and the determined fraud risk rating may be electronically transmitted by a transmitting device (e.g., the transmitting device 216) of the processing server to a financial institution (e.g., issuing institution 108) associated with the primary account number stored in the second data element included in the received transaction message. 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. Claim 8- 11, and 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowenberg et al (US 2018/0101851 A1) in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 2019/0318358 A1) Regarding claim 8 Lowenberg does not specifically teach: wherein the fraud warning comprises a prompt presented on a user interface of the at least one remote electronic device. However, Chamberlain at least at: [0057] In some embodiments, if the risk score exceeds the threshold value, then the user is notified of the risk and is instructed to perform one or more mitigation activities in order to reduce or mitigate the risks at block 420. For example, in some embodiments, the notification may case display of a dashboard on the user device to present information about the electronic transaction and the identified risk factors corresponding to the electronic transactions. In some embodiments, the dashboard provides instructions to the user to perform one or more mitigation activities that can help to reduce or mitigate the risks associated with the electronic transaction. In some embodiments, an incentive may be provided to the user to perform the mitigation activities, such as, for example, fraud insurance or a reduction in premiums. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify method for identification of shared devices for fraud modeling of Lowenberg in view of the method for assessing risk of fraud in an electronic transaction as taught by Chamberlain in order to identify potential risks associated with the beneficiary of the electronic transaction, and send a notification or otherwise notifies the customer of the potential risks. (Chamberlain [0015]) Regarding claim 9 Lowenberg does not specifically teach: wherein the prompt provides additional details about the past fraudulent activity. However Chamberlain at least at: [0057] In some embodiments, if the risk score exceeds the threshold value, then the user is notified of the risk and is instructed to perform one or more mitigation activities in order to reduce or mitigate the risks at block 420. For example, in some embodiments, the notification may case display of a dashboard on the user device to present information about the electronic transaction and the identified risk factors corresponding to the electronic transactions. I n some embodiments, the dashboard provides instructions to the user to perform one or more mitigation activities that can help to reduce or mitigate the risks associated with the electronic transaction. In some embodiments, an incentive may be provided to the user to perform the mitigation activities, such as, for example, fraud insurance or a reduction in premiums. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify method for identification of shared devices for fraud modeling of Lowenberg in view of the method for assessing risk of fraud in an electronic transaction as taught by Chamberlain in order to identify potential risks associated with the beneficiary of the electronic transaction, and send a notification or otherwise notifies the customer of the potential risks. (Chamberlain [0015]) Regarding claim 10 Lowenberg does not specifically teach: wherein the prompt provides a user actuation target allowing the electronic financial transaction to be terminated. However Chamberlain at least at: [0053] Further, the user may edit 370 the transaction amount or may cancel the transaction entirely. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify method for identification of shared devices for fraud modeling of Lowenberg in view of the method for assessing risk of fraud in an electronic transaction as taught by Chamberlain in order to identify potential risks associated with the beneficiary of the electronic transaction, and send a notification or otherwise notifies the customer of the potential risks. (Chamberlain [0015]) Regarding claim 11 a communication device; (See at least Lowenberg [0023] The computing device 104 may be used by one or more consumers 106 to conduct payment transactions one or more processors operable with the communication device; (See at least Lowenberg [0023] The system 100 may include a processing server 102. The processing server 102, discussed in more detail below, may be configured to identify fraud risk ratings and use fraud modeling based on the usage of a computing device 104 across multiple payment transactions. wherein when the communication device receives a financial transaction initiation communication from at least one remote electronic device comprising an electronic device identifier from which a financial transaction initiation request was received by the at least one remote electronic device, the one or more processors determine whether the electronic device identifier is associated with an account identifier of an account used for fraud; and (See at least Lowenberg [0048] and [0049]: [0048] In step 302, the receiving device 202 of the processing server 102 may receive an authorization request for a payment transaction, such as via the payment rails associated with the payment network 112. The authorization request may be a transaction message that is formatted pursuant to one or more standards, such as the ISO 8583 or ISO 20022 standards, that includes a message type indicator indicative of an authorization request. The authorization request may include a plurality of data elements including at least a first data element configured to store a device identifier associated with the computing device 104 used to initiate the payment transaction, a second data element configured to store a primary account number associated with a transaction account to be used to fund the payment transaction, and one or more additional data elements configured to store additional transaction data. [0049] In step 304, the querying module 210 of the processing server 102 may execute a query on the transaction database 206 to identify a plurality of transaction data entries 208 related to payment transactions that involved the same computing device 104. The transaction data entries 208 may each include a device identifier that corresponds to the device identifier stored in the first data element included in the received authorization request. In some instances, the generation module 214 of the processing server 102 may first generate a tokenized value using the device identifier parsed from the authorization request, which may be used to identify the transaction data entries 208. However Lowenberg does not specifically teach: when the electronic device identifier is associated with the account identifier of an account used for fraud, the one or more processors cause the communication device to present a prompt on the at least one remote electronic device warning of fraudulent activity. However Chamberlain at least at: [0057] In some embodiments, if the risk score exceeds the threshold value, then the user is notified of the risk and is instructed to perform one or more mitigation activities in order to reduce or mitigate the risks at block 420. For example, in some embodiments, the notification may case display of a dashboard on the user device to present information about the electronic transaction and the identified risk factors corresponding to the electronic transactions. In some embodiments, the dashboard provides instructions to the user to perform one or more mitigation activities that can help to reduce or mitigate the risks associated with the electronic transaction. In some embodiments, an incentive may be provided to the user to perform the mitigation activities, such as, for example, fraud insurance or a reduction in premiums. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify method for identification of shared devices for fraud modeling of Lowenberg in view of the method for assessing risk of fraud in an electronic transaction as taught by Chamberlain in order to identify potential risks associated with the beneficiary of the electronic transaction, and send a notification or otherwise notifies the customer of the potential risks. (Chamberlain [0015]) Regarding claim 13 further comprising a memory operable with the one or more processors, the memory storing a functional database of device identifiers associated with fraudulent activity. (See at least Lowerberg [0055] In step 406, a query may be executed on the transaction database by a querying module (e.g., the querying module 210) of the processing server to identify one or more transaction data entries where the included device identifier corresponds to the specific device identifier stored in the first data element included in the received transaction message. In step 408, a fraud risk rating may be determined by a determination module (e.g., the determination module 212) of the processing server based on at least a number of unique account identifiers included in the identified one or more transaction data entries over a predetermined period of time and the primary account number stored in the second data element included in the received transaction message. In step 410, at least the received transaction message and the determined fraud risk rating may be electronically transmitted by a transmitting device (e.g., the transmitting device 216) of the processing server to a financial institution (e.g., issuing institution 108) associated with the primary account number stored in the second data element included in the received transaction message. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowenberg et al (US 2018/0101851 A1). in view of Murali et al. (US 2023/0216967 A1) Regarding claim 4 Lowenberg does not specifically teach: further comprising determining that the electronic device identifier has been associated with the past fraudulent activity when a plurality of remote electronic devices in communication with the electronic device having a quantity exceeding a predefined threshold has transmitted electronic communications to the communication device indicating that the electronic device identifier is suspected of being used fraudulently. However Murali at least at: [0066] and [0067: [0066] In one example, at least one of the nodes in the relationship graph may be labeled with an indicator of a known fraud association. In such an example, the plurality of features may include the known fraud associatio n (e.g., where the node so labeled may be one hop away from a node of interest, two hops away, three hops away, etc.). The plurality of features can also include the number of hops away (e.g., the closer a known fraud-associated node is to the node of interest, the more likely the node of interest is also fraud-associated). In an example in which the relationship graph includes nodes for billing accounts , the plurality of features may include a number of device identifiers associated with at least one of the plurality of billing accounts. For instance, having more than one device identifier associated with a billing account indicates a slightly elevated risk for fraud. However, having zero device identifiers associated with a billing account (e.g., for the given recent time period of 14 days, 30 days, or the like) may be associated with a substantial increase in a likelihood of fraud. [0067] In any case, step 340 may include obtaining the fraud risk value, which may comprise a binary output (e.g., fraud/no fraud or fraud likely/not likely), may have multiple categories (e.g., very high risk, high risk, neutral, low risk, very low risk), may be an output on a continuous scale (e.g., zero to 100, with zero being low risk and 100 being high risk, etc.), or the like . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify method for identification of shared devices for fraud modeling of Lowenberg in view of the relationship graphs for telecommunications network fraud detection as taught by Murali in order to prevent fraudulent online and/or in-person retail transaction from being completed . ( Murali [001 4 ]) Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowenberg et al (US 2018/0101851 A1). in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 2019/0318358 A1) and further in view of Smales (US 2018/0130056 A1) Regarding claims 7 and 16 Dent does not specifically teach: further comprising determining that the electronic device identifier has been associated with the fraudulent activity when the electronic device identifier is associated with a falsified account number or personal identification number. However Smales teaches at least at: [0096] The code is intercepted by the MIM/MIB 114/122 which, in accordance with a conventional implementation, simply passes this code through via transmission 408 without making any changes. However, since the MIM/MIB 114/122 had previously modified the recipient account number in order to falsify the transaction, the code passed through to transmission 408 from transmission 406 does not match the account number as originally received by the SSP 106. Thus, when the SSP 106 receives and attempts to validate the verification code 404, this validation will fail, and the fraudulent modification of the critical transaction information will be detected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify method for identification of shared devices for fraud modeling of Lowenberg and Chamberlain in view of the method for transaction security as taught by Smales in order thwart, or at least to significantly mitigate, existing MIM/MIB attacks. ( Smales [0096]) Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowenberg et al (US 2018/0101851 A1) in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 2019/0318358 A1) and further in view of Lim (US 2020/0034853 A1) Regarding claim 1 2 Lowenberg does not specifically teach: wherein the prompt includes a user actuation target that, when actuated, terminates a financial transaction associated with the financial transaction initiation communication. However Lim teaches: [0088] In operation 1220 of the method 1200B, the fraud detection module 260 cancels a transaction associated with the object determined in operation 1120 in response to a user input received via the user interface, the user interface indicating the second graphical element. For example, the row 330B in the event table 310 is used in the method 1100 to identify the association between the account of the first graphical element and the object of the second graphical element. The row 330B in the event table 310 stores an event for a purchase item behavior. By selecting the object, the link, or the account in the user interface 700 and sending a cancel transaction command, the user requests that the transaction be canceled. In response to receiving a corresponding message from the device 140C displaying the user interface 700, the fraud detection module 260 cancels the purchase of the object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify method for identification of shared devices for fraud modeling of Lowenberg in view of the User interface for fraud detection system as taught by Lim in order to obviate a need for certain efforts or resources that otherwise would be involved in detecting fraud . ( Lim [00 99 ]) Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowenberg et al (US 2018/0101851 A1) in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 2019/0318358 A1) and further in view of Corner (US 2012/0295580 A1) Regarding claim 15 Lowenberg does not specifically teach: wherein the device identifiers associated with the fraudulent activity are determined by a number of electronic communications reporting the device identifiers are associated with the fraudulent activity exceeds a predefined threshold. However Corner at least at: [0366] For example, in one embodiment, the fraud detection engine (711) is configured to determine the velocity of payment requests based on the time interval between successive payment requests associated with the phone number (123). The shorter the time interval, the larger the payment velocity is. If the velocity of a payment request exceeds a predetermined threshold, the payment request is potentially fraudulent . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify method for identification of shared devices for fraud modeling of Lowenberg in view of the method to detect fraudulent payment requests as taught by Chamberlain in order to detect a potentially fraudulent activity in payments requested via a phone number and configured to communicate with a server of a telecommunication carrier of the phone number to further process the activity based on an indication of abnormality in the telecommunication usage pattern of a mobile phone at the phone number . ( Corner (abstract ) ). Prior art of record not relied upon Gonzales et al. (US 2023/0245128 A1) Teaches Detecting digital harvesting utilizing a dynamic transaction request fraud detection model. Larson et al. (US 10,693,872 B1) Teaches Identity Verification System. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5155 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ryan Donlon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 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. /GREGORY M JAMES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /RYAN D DONLON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692