DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Final Rejection. This action is in response to the amendment and response filed on January 30, 2026.
Claims 10-20 have been canceled.
Claims 32-37 have been added.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 21-24, 27, and 29-31 have been amended.
Claims 1-9 and 21-37 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and specifically step 2A, prong one, Applicant argues that the instant claims are analogous to the claims in Synopsys. Remarks at 10. Similar to Synopsys, the instant claims recite mental processes because they could be performed mentally or with pencil and paper. The claims also recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant further argues that the Office action “failed to individually consider the dependent claims with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two an Step 2B.” Remarks at 10. However, the rejection included the text of a set of the claims (claims 1-9) and provided the additional elements in bold. Claims 2-9, prior to being amended, did not recite any additional elements. Therefore, the analysis was the same as claim 1. Regarding the amended claims, the claimed “computer system” is the only additional element and the dependent claims are ineligible for the same reason as the independent claim. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the arguments are moot because the rejection has been withdrawn. The rejection is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and remarks. The independent claims as a whole are found to be nonobvious. Although individual claim concept are known in the art, the independent claims as a whole were not found in the art.
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 1-9 and 21-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-9 and 32-37, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Yes, with respect to claims 21-29, which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Yes, with respect to claims 30 and 31, which recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims (Claims 1-9 and 32-37 are representative) identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A method comprising:
determining, by a computer system, for a first variable of a plurality of variables associated with each one of a plurality of electronic transactions, a first set of groups of the plurality of electronic transactions, wherein each of the first set of groups are grouped according to a value of the first variable;
determining, by the computer system, for a second variable of the plurality of variables, a second set of groups of the plurality of electronic transactions, wherein each of the second set of groups are grouped according to a value of the second variable;
determining, by the computer system for each group of the first set of groups and for each group of the second set of groups, a factor indicative of both a percentage of electronic transactions in a respective group that are fraudulent and a percentage of a total amount associated with the electronic transactions in the group that are fraudulent; and
determining, by the computer system based on the factor of each of the first set of groups and the second set of groups, a group from the first set of groups and the second set of groups that has a highest factor value.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein:
a first quantity of transactions of the plurality of transactions in a first group of the first set of groups is greater than a second quantity of transactions of the plurality of transactions in a second group of the first set of groups, and
each one of the second quantity of the second group is included in the first group.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first variable comprises data indicative of whether a transaction is a first transaction of a user or whether a transaction is within a predetermined threshold of the first transaction of the user.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first variable comprises data indicative of an institution through which the electronic transaction is processed, an identity of a user associated with the electronic transaction, or a type of user who processed the transaction.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of electronic transactions comprises multiple historical electronic transactions previously deemed to be fraudulent.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the plurality of electronic transactions comprises fraudulent electronic transactions that were completed and fraudulent electronic transactions that were not completed.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the first variable comprises, for each of the plurality of electronic transactions, a value of one of a plurality of discrete values.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the first variable comprises whether a transaction is a first transaction of a user, whether a transaction is within a predetermined threshold of the first transaction of the user, an institution through which the electronic transaction is processed, an identity of the user associated with the electronic transaction, or a type of user who processed the transaction.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the first variable comprises, for each of the plurality of electronic transactions, a transaction amount or a calculated risk score of an electronic transaction.
32. The method of claim 1, wherein the group that is determined to have the highest factor value comprises a first group of the first set of groups, and wherein the method further comprises determining, by the computer system based on the factor of each of the second set of groups, a second group from the second set of groups that has a highest factor value of the second set of groups.
33. The method of claim 32, further comprising determining, by the computer system, a first threshold value of the first variable associated with the first group and a second threshold value of the second variable associated with the second group.
34. The method of claim 33, further comprising sorting, by the computer system, the plurality of transactions into a first subset based on which of the plurality of transactions has the first variable that meets or exceeds the first threshold value.
35. The method of claim 34, further comprising sorting, by the computer system, the plurality of transactions in the first subset into a second subset based on which transactions in the first subset have the second variable that meets or exceeds the second threshold value.
36. The method of claim 35, further comprising implementing, by the computer system, a fraud prevention rule based on at least one characteristic of transactions in the second subset.
37. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the computer system using a predictive model, values for the first variable of each of the plurality of transactions, wherein the values each comprise a risk score calculated using the predictive model implemented by the computer system.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to analyzing transaction data to improve fraud detection. This type of method of organizing human activity is a commercial interaction such as sales activities or behaviors and business relations. The claims also recite mental processes. For example, the four determining steps of claim 1 involve evaluation. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device (i.e., the claimed computer system) is needed to implement the claimed process (e.g., determining a first set of groups of transactions, determining a second set of groups of transactions, determining a factor, and determining a group). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Ameisen, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0152923 A1. This reference teaches data management using score calibrating and scaling functions.
Qu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0394659 A1. This reference teaches methods for generating fraud detection rules based on historical transaction data.
Hammond et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0321661 A1. This reference teaches analyzing large amounts of transaction data to identify potential fraud.
Kala et al., U.S. Patent Number 11,875,350 B2. This reference teaches fraud detection.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
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 extension fee 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 ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
Prosecution Insights