DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on July 30, 2026.
Claims 10-20 have been canceled.
Claims 32-37 have been added.
1, 21, and 30 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 amended claim does not merely recite an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind. The claim requires computer generation of new grouped data structures from the received electronic transaction data, computer calculation of a fraud-related factor for each generated group, computer generation of a highest-factor group from those calculated values, and an automatic computer-implemented action applied to electronic transactions based on a characteristic of that generated group.” Remarks at 2. However, claim 1, for example, could be performed in the mind or on paper. For example, someone could generate groups on a piece of paper, calculate a factor, generate a group, and take action such as assembling a report or canceling a transaction. Additionally, per the rejection, the claims also recite certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts.
Applicant further argues that the claims “provide ‘the technical improvement to computing systems to more accurately and to more often identify electronic transactions that may be fraudulent’ and also improve backend client devices by more accurately characterizing and identifying transaction characteristics indicative of fraud.” Remarks at 3. However, an alleged improvement to identifying electronic transactions that may be fraudulent would be an improvement to the abstract idea and not to the technology.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide a practical application in light of the amendment which includes the limitation of “automatically taking, by the computer system, based on at least one characteristic of the group, an automated action to the plurality of electronic transactions.” Regarding this limitation, paragraph 0068 of the Specification recites:
[0068] At an operation 806, those transactions are actually flagged using the filter condition(s) established at the operation 804. At an operation 808, an automated action may be taken based on the transactions being flagged prior to authorizing or processing the transaction. For example, investigations into those identified transactions may be launched, reports (e.g., law enforcement reports, reports to banking or credit card institutions) may be assembled and sent to interested parties, the transactions may be suspended or canceled for further investigation/analysis, a user involved in the transaction may be prompted for more information to verify that they are an authorized user of a particular account before the transaction is processed/authorized, etc. Such actions may be specified through a user interface on a backend user device, client device, etc. as automatically executable rules based on the filters/flags set up at the operation 804. That is, when the flags or filters are established at the operation 804, rules for what actions the payment processing system should take upon flagging a transaction as potentially fraudulent may also be established.
None of the examples of automated actions that are described in paragraph 0068 would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These actions are all part of an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the “ordered combination improves fraud detection and electronic transaction processing by allowing the computer system to identify transaction characteristics associated with elevated fraud concentration and automatically act on transactions based on those characteristics.” Remarks at 4. However, these alleged improvements that are described are improvements to the abstract idea and not to the technology.
Applicant further argues that “[t]he claim also recites significantly more under Step 2B. The additional computer operations, considered as an ordered combination, are not merely instructions to apply an abstract idea. The amended claim requires a particular transformation pipeline and an automatic transaction action based on the resulting highest-factor group.” Remarks at 5. However, when considered as an ordered combination, claim 1 is generating two sets of groups, calculating a factor for each group, generating a second set of groups, and taking an action to the plurality of transactions. This does not require more than a general purpose computer programmed to implement these steps.
As such, the rejection is maintained.
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:
receiving, by a computer system, a plurality of electronic transactions each associated with a plurality of variables;
generating, by a computer system, for a first variable of the plurality of variables, 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;
generating, 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;
calculating, 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
generating, 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; and
automatically taking, by the computer system, based on at least one characteristic of the group, an automated action to the plurality of electronic transactions.
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 receiving step includes observation, the generating and calculating steps include evaluation, and the “automatically taking” step includes judgment or opinion. The claims also recite mathematical concepts because the claims recite mathematical calculations. 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
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