DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the amendments filed on April 28, 2026.
• Claims 1, 5, 14, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 4, 6-13, and 17-19 have been canceled.
• Claims 1-3, 5, 14-16, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 112 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 103 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 7-9, that the claims improve technology, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of mitigating fraud associated with payment transactions for products or virtual products between parties (see at least [0002]-[0003], [0012], and [0024] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., mitigating fraud associated with payment transactions for products or virtual products between parties, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on page 8 regarding DDR, Applicant’s reliance upon DDR is misplaced. The claims here are not like those the Court found patent eligible in DDR, in which the inventive concept was in the modification of conventional mechanics behind website display to produce a dual-source integrated hybrid display because Applicant’s claims here in the instant application do not address problems unique to the Internet or require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information. Rather, the pending claims are directed to solving the problem of mitigating fraud associated with payment transactions for products or virtual products between parties (see at least [0002]-[0003], [0012], and [0024] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., mitigating fraud associated with payment transactions for products or virtual products between parties, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 9, that the claims integrate a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that generally link the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use-see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here the additional elements of claim 1 include network-initiated transactions; a host computing device; network details; a virtual product; a computing device; a data repository. The Examiner notes that the host computer of claim 1 is also in communication with an issuer and acquirer. The additional elements of claim 14 include a system for use in associating a confirmed user (CU) to network-initiated transactions, the system comprising a host computing device configured to perform claim functions; network details; a computing device; a data repository. The Examiner notes that the host computer of claim 14 is also in communication with an issuer and acquirer. The additional elements are such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0002]-[0003] and [0012] of the Specification, describing improving mitigating fraud associated with payment transactions between parties.
Applicant further argues, on page 9, that the claims provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of he additional elements of claim 1 include network-initiated transactions; a host computing device; network details; a virtual product; a computing device; a data repository. The Examiner notes that the host computer of claim 1 is also in communication with an issuer and acquirer. The additional elements of claim 14 include a system for use in associating a confirmed user (CU) to network-initiated transactions, the system comprising a host computing device configured to perform claim functions; network details; a computing device; a data repository. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network), and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer network to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
Applicant’s reliance upon Bascom, on page 10, is misplaced. The claims here are not like those the Court found patent eligible in Bascom, in which the inventive concept was the unconventional arrangement of the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user, this design permitted the filtering tool to have both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the [Internet Service Provider] server and was not conventional or generic, instead, the patent claimed and explained how a particular arrangement of elements was “a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.” (BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345.). In the instant application the claims do not have an inventive concept found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements.
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner’s Note
In view of the Specification at [0039]-[0044], the Examiner is interpreting a computing device as comprising hardware. A software per se rejection would therefore not be appropriate for claim 14.
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, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 14 are directed to a method (claim 1) and a system (claim 14). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1 and 14 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1 and 14 recite, in part, a system, a method, and an apparatus of organizing human activity. Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for use in associating a confirmed user (CU) to transactions, the method comprising: receiving, in connection with an authentication message associated with a transaction, details for the transaction for a product between an account of a user and a first party, the details including at least a delivery data element specific to delivery of the product and an identifier of the user involved in the transaction, and the details associated with a transaction identifier for the transaction; identifying details for multiple prior undisputed transactions between the account of the user and the first party; accessing details for the identified multiple prior undisputed transactions, the network details for the multiple prior undisputed transactions including a delivery data element specific to delivery of prior virtual products and the identifier of the computing device of the user; matching the details for said transaction and the details for the multiple prior undisputed transactions, thereby indicating a prior undisputed association of the computing device and prior virtual product purchases from the first party, through the account; receiving an authorization message from an acquirer associated with the first party, the host computing device being part of a processing network; and based on the authorization message including the transaction identifier for the transaction and the match between the details for said transaction and the details for the multiple prior undisputed transactions: appending a confirmed user flag to the authorization message for the transaction; and transmitting the authorization message with the flag to an issuer of the account of the user, whereby the issuer relies on the confirmed user flag, from the authorization message, as instructive of the prior undisputed association indicating a potential for first-party fraud, in deciding to approve or decline a chargeback request specific to the transaction.
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as claim 1 above. And claim 14 further recites store the details in association with the transaction identifier; transmit the authorization message, with the confirmed user flag, to the issuer.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for comparing past transaction data to current transaction data to determine to approve or decline the transaction, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice of mitigating risk and commercial and legal interaction of sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of a host computing device and network details do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of claim 1 include network-initiated transactions; a host computing device; network details; a virtual product; a computing device; a data repository. The Examiner notes that the host computer of claim 1 is also in communication with an issuer and acquirer.
The additional elements of claim 14 include a system for use in associating a confirmed user (CU) to network-initiated transactions, the system comprising a host computing device configured to perform claim functions; network details; a computing device; a data repository. The Examiner notes that the host computer of claim 14 is also in communication with an issuer and acquirer.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components performing a generic computer function receiving transaction data, storing transaction data, comparing past transaction data to current transaction data, and appending an authorization message with a flag that indicates to an issuer to approve or decline a transaction) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-3, 5, 15-16, and 20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5, 14-16, and 20 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210192532 A1 (“Thomson”) discloses a data optimization computer system for optimizing transaction authorization request messages directed to an authorizing party. The computer system includes a historical transaction database, a merchant database, and a data optimization computing device. The historical transaction database stores a plurality of historical transaction records. The merchant database stores a first merchant registered with the optimization computer system. The data optimization computing device may analyze at least a subset of the historical transaction records to generate a set of optimization rules. The set of optimization rules identifies optimal values for an optimized transaction authorization request message. The optimized transaction authorization request message may be associated with an improved likelihood of resulting in a positive request outcome.
US 11704666 B1 (“Barakat”) discloses authorizing transactions without a payment card present. One method includes receiving a habitual transaction request including a customer indicator and identifying characteristics of the habitual transaction request. The method further includes identifying, utilizing the customer indicator, habit information of a customer and authenticating the habitual transaction request based on the characteristics of the habitual transaction request conforming with the habit information. The method further includes, in response to authenticating the habitual transaction request, authorizing the habitual transaction request and receiving a non-habitual transaction request including the customer indicator. The method further includes determining that the customer is active, and the customer indicator is approved to conduct a non-habitual transaction and authorizing the non-habitual transaction request based on the determination and the customer indicator being approved to conduct the non-habitual transaction and transmitting a notification indicating the non-habitual transaction request was authorized.
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 RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM 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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights