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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. The following is a NON-FINAL Office Action in response to the communicationreceived on 12/12/25. Claims 1-7, 9-20 are now pending in this application.
2. A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including thefee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application AFTER FINAL rejection.Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and thefee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the FINALITY of the previousOffice Action has been WITHDRAWN pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant'ssubmission filed on 12/12/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
3. Applicants Amendment has been acknowledged in that: Claims 13-17have been amended; hence such, Claims 1-7, 9-20 are nowpending in this application.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argues#1
Step 2A - Prong 1
Just as the district court oversimplified the claims in McRO, the Office has oversimplified claims 1, 13, and 18 by failing to account for or interpret the specific requirements of the limitations recited in claim 1. In particular, the Office has failed to interpret, acknowledge, or meaningfully analyze, inter alia, at least the below listed subject matter recited in claims 1, 13, and 18:
Claim 1: determining, by the processor of the transaction processing entity, whether the risk score exceeds a threshold indicating the transaction attempt is potentially fraudulent; in response to determining the risk score exceeds the threshold:
determining, by the processor of the transaction processing entity, whether to approve or decline the transaction attempt; and determining, by the processor of the transaction processing entity, a reason for approving or declining the transaction attempt based on one or more variables contributing to the risk score using an explainable artificial intelligence architecture to group one or more variables contributing to the risk score into one or more fraud reasons, the reason for approving or declining the attempt being based on the one or more fraud reasons;
Claim 13:
in response to determining the risk score exceeds the threshold:
generating, by the transaction authenticator, a list of fraud reasons based on the risk score, wherein each fraud reason of the list of fraud reasons includes an importance value; determining, by the transaction authenticator, a weight of a subset of the list of fraud reasons; generating, by the transaction authenticator, a decision tree based on the subset of the list of fraud reasons to determine whether a transaction is potentially fraudulent; determining, by the transaction authenticator, whether to approve or decline the transaction attempt based on the decision tree and the weight of the subset of list of fraud reasons; determining, by the transaction authenticator, a reason for approving or declining the transaction attempt based on one or more variables contributing to the risk score using an explainable artificial intelligence architecture to group one or more variables contributing to the risk score into one or more fraud reasons, the reason for approving or declining the attempt being based on at least one of the fraud reasons;
Claim 18:
determine whether a risk score associated with a transaction attempt exceeds a threshold indicating the transaction attempt is potentially fraudulent;
in response to determining the risk score exceeds the threshold:
determine whether to approve or decline the transaction attempt; and
determine a reason for approving or declining the transaction attempt using an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) architecture to group one or more variables contributing to the risk score into one or more fraud reasons, the reason for approving or declining the attempt being based on the one or more fraud reasons;
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations from claim 1 (determining, whether the risk score exceeds a threshold indicating the transaction attempt is potentially fraudulent; in response to determining the risk score exceeds the threshold: determining, whether to approve or decline the transaction attempt; and determining, a reason for approving or declining the transaction attempt based on one or more variables contributing to the risk score to group one or more variables contributing to the risk score into one or more fraud reasons, the reason for approving or declining the attempt being based on the one or more fraud reasons) is part of the identified abstract idea (steps for determining whether to approve/decline a transaction based on potential fraud).
The additional elements outside of the abstract idea (the processor and the explainable artificial intelligence architecture) are recited at a high level of generality, operating in its ordinary capacity, and is being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The rejection is maintained.
The limitations from claim 13 (in response to determining the risk score exceeds the threshold: generating, a list of fraud reasons based on the risk score, wherein each fraud reason of the list of fraud reasons includes an importance value; determining, a weight of a subset of the list of fraud reasons; generating, based on the subset of the list of fraud reasons to determine whether a transaction is potentially fraudulent; determining, whether to approve or decline the transaction attempt based on the weight of the subset of list of fraud reasons; determining, a reason for approving or declining the transaction attempt based on one or more variables contributing to the risk score to group one or more variables contributing to the risk score into one or more fraud reasons, the reason for approving or declining the attempt being based on at least one of the fraud reasons) is part of the identified abstract idea.
The additional elements outside of the abstract idea (the transaction authenticator, decision tree and explainable artificial intelligence architecture) are recited at a high level of generality, all operating in their ordinary capacity, and is being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The rejection is maintained.
The limitations from claim 18 (determine whether a risk score associated with a transaction attempt exceeds a threshold indicating the transaction attempt is potentially fraudulent; in response to determining the risk score exceeds the threshold:
determine whether to approve or decline the transaction attempt; and
determine a reason for approving or declining the transaction attempt to group one or more variables contributing to the risk score into one or more fraud reasons, the reason for approving or declining the attempt being based on the one or more fraud reasons) is part of the identified abstract idea.
The additional element outside of the abstract idea (the explainable artificial intelligence architecture) is recited at a high level of generality, operating in its ordinary capacity, and is being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#2
In the patentable subject matter analysis, the Office recites some claim language, verbatim, followed by a largely unsubstantiated conclusion - precisely the type of analysis that Federal Circuit in McRO has categorized as an oversimplification that should be avoided. Applicant further submits that the use of "an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) architecture to group one or more variables...into one or more fraud reasons...," as recited in claims 1, 13, and 18, (1) streamlines, and simplifies existing risk management processes, and (2) decrypts an unexplainable model score into several explainable reason groups in plain language for risk decision management. Consequently, instances of failed transactions resulting from false determinations of fraudulent activity may be significantly reduced, particularly as the XAI architecture can be implemented across thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of transactions in near real time.
Furthermore, the use of "explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)" as recited in the claims constitutes a specific means of improving relevant technology, and as such, is not directed to an abstract idea. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. ("A patent may issue 'for the means or method of producing a certain result, or effect, and not for the result or effect produced' . . . [CAFC looks] ... to whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.").
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is no improvement to technology.
Applicant is pointed to MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]:
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.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement
Now turning to the instant specification, paras 19-21,32 reproduced below:
[0019] Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) can be leveraged to identify the reasons for a machine learning model to take particular actions. However, in most machine learning models, there can be thousands of variables contributing to the result. Reviewing thousands of variables contributing to a model score includes many that are not applicable. Moreover, many of the variables themselves are not easily understandable (e.g., it is difficult to understand the meaning of "blnkCntyBrchRtnbadAcct").
[0020] Embodiments of this disclosure determine the reasons behind a model result (e.g., phone riskiness, suspicious address, etc.). Parties to a transaction (or even the transaction processing entity) can use these reasons to build strategies and make decisions. The embodiments streamline, simplify, and optimize existing risk management processes by leveraging XAI to improve transaction party experience.
[0021] Embodiments of this disclosure use an XAI architecture to decrypt an
unexplainable model score and reduce the score into several explainable reason groups (even though the fraud model leverages thousands of variables) in plain language for risk decision management. In some embodiments, the risk model is developed based on historical transaction data.
[0032] As discussed above, the fraud detector 116 may include the machine learning model 120 for determining whether a transaction is potentially fraudulent. However, machine learning models are generally unable to provide an output indicative of why the transaction may be flagged as potentially fraudulent. As a result, in some embodiments, the fraud detector 116 may not be able to be leveraged to explain to the user why a transaction is potentially fraudulent. Instead, the transaction authenticator 118 including an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) architecture 122 can be leveraged in combination with the fraud detector 116 to determine why the transaction was potentially fraudulent, and ultimately, whether to approve or decline the transaction. The XAI architecture 122 is shown and described in additional detail in accordance with FIG. 7 below.
It can be seen from the spec paras cited that the XAI architecture is recited at a high level of generality, operating in its ordinary capacity and is being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Furthermore, applicant argued the claims present a technical improvement. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (determination of whether to approve/decline a transaction based on potential fraud) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#3
Step 2A - Prong 2
Even if the claims were directed an abstract idea (which they are not), the subject matter of the claims do in fact impose meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea to which the claims may be directed. In particular, claims 1, 13, and 18 are directed, at least in part, to the specific steps of "receiving...a transaction attempt,""receiving... a risk score from a risk strategy decision model...from a machine learning model,"determining...whether the risk score exceeds a threshold indicating the transaction attempt is potentially fraudulent," and "determining...a reason for approving or declining the transaction attempt based on one or more variables contributing to the risk score using an explainable artificial intelligence architecture to group one or more variables contributing to the risk score into one or more fraud reasons, the reason for approving or declining the attempt being based on the one or more fraud reasons," in the realm of risk management processes for the purpose of fraud detection.
For at least these reasons, the claims include additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea to which these claims are allegedly directed, into a practical application, namely one that decrypts unexplainable model scores into plain language, which then significantly reduces instances of false determinations of fraudulent activity based on failed transactions.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations from claims 1, 13, 18 ( "receiving...a transaction attempt," "receiving... a risk score, "determining...whether the risk score exceeds a threshold indicating the transaction attempt is potentially fraudulent," and "determining...a reason for approving or declining the transaction attempt based on one or more variables contributing to the risk score to group one or more variables contributing to the risk score into one or more fraud reasons, the reason for approving or declining the attempt being based on the one or more fraud reasons) is part of the identified abstract idea.
The additional elements, outside of the abstract idea (the risk strategy decision model, machine learning model, and explainable artificial intelligence architecture) are recited at a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Therefore there are no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#4
Step 2B
Regarding 2B, Applicant respectfully refutes the Office's assertion that the claims do not recite any additional elements beyond the judicial exception and submits that the Office's reasoning is legally insufficient in view of the Berkheimer Memorandum. Specifically, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has not only failed to demonstrate that the features recited in the claims are abstract ideas but has also failed to demonstrate that these features are well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the manner required by the Berkheimer Memo. In fact, absence of prior art that allegedly discloses the combination of features recited in the claims, is instructive of and strongly supports the conclusion that the claimed combination of elements are unconventional or non-routine, and as such, are not widely prevalent or in common use. Accordingly, the claims recite more than the alleged judicial exception, and thus recite patent eligible subject matter under § 101.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, Applicant submits that claims 1-7 and 9-20 are patent eligible as recited. As such, Applicant requests the Office to withdraw all pending rejections under § 101.
Examiner Response
Applicant misapprehends when a Berkheimer analysis is required under current examination policy. Simply put, Examiner is not required under current Examination policy to evaluate under Step 2B, whether additional elements constitute “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities,” [“WURC activities”] unless an additional element(s) were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong 2. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). Here, the condition precedent was not met and the Final Office Action determined the additional elements were no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception using a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Thus, Examiner was not required to determine a Berkheimer analysis. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). (See Section 101 rejection below).
The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 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.
1. Claims 1-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 13, 18 are directed to a method, system and computer readable medium which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Representative Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of a transaction processing entity, a transaction attempt;
receiving, by the processor of the transaction processing entity, a risk score from a risk strategy decision model, wherein the risk score is determined from a machine learning model;
in response to receiving the risk score:
determining, by the processor of the transaction processing entity, whether the risk score exceeds a threshold indicating the transaction attempt is potentially fraudulent;
in response to determining the risk score exceeds the threshold:
determining, by the processor of the transaction processing entity, whether to approve or decline the transaction attempt; and
determining, by the processor of the transaction processing entity, a reason for approving or declining the transaction attempt based on one or more variables contributing to the risk score using an explainable artificial intelligence architecture to group one or more variables contributing to the risk score, into one or more fraud reasons, the reason for approving or declining the attempt being based on the one or more fraud reasons;
outputting, by the processor of the transaction processing entity, an indication to approve or decline the transaction attempt in response to the determining whether to approve or decline the transaction attempt; and
outputting, by the processor of the transaction processing entity, the reason for approving or declining the transaction attempt.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claim recites elements that are in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction, steps for determining whether to approve/decline a transaction based on potential fraud (e.g., receiving, by a transaction processing entity, a transaction attempt; receiving, by the transaction processing entity, a risk score, wherein the risk score is determined; in response to receiving the risk score: determining, by the transaction processing entity, whether the risk score exceeds a threshold indicating the transaction attempt is potentially fraudulent; in response to determining the risk score exceeds the threshold: determining, by the transaction processing entity, whether to approve or decline the transaction attempt; and determining, by the transaction processing entity, a reason for approving or declining the transaction attempt based on one or more variables contributing to the risk score to group one or more variables contributing to the risk score, into one or more fraud reasons, the reason for approving or declining the attempt being based on the one or more fraud reasons; outputting, by the transaction processing entity, an indication to approve or decline the transaction attempt in response to the determining whether to approve or decline the transaction attempt; and outputting, by the transaction processing entity, the reason for approving or declining the transaction attempt.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a Commercial Interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 13, 18 are abstract for similar reasons.
(Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claims 1, 13,18 includes the following additional elements:
-A processor of a transaction processing entity
-A risk strategy decision model
-A machine learning model
- A non-transitory computer readable medium
- A transaction authenticator
-A decision tree
-An explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) architecture
The processor, risk strategy decision model, machine learning model, non-transitory computer readable medium, transaction authenticator, decision tree and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) architecture are recited at a high level of generality and are being used in their ordinary capacity and are being used as a tool for implementing the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Therefore claims 1, 13, 18 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 1, 13, 18 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 13, 18 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Claim 3 further defines the identified abstract idea as recited in claim 1. The additional element of the decision tree is recited a high level of generality, operating in its ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 4 further defines the identified abstract idea as recited in claim 1. The additional element of Shapley (SHAP) algorithm is recited a high level of generality, operating in its ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Claim 7 further defines the identified abstract idea as recited in claim 1. The additional element of explainable artificial intelligence architecture is recited a high level of generality, operating in its ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Claim 20 further defines the identified abstract idea as recited in claim 18.
The additional element of an underlying fraud risk model is recited a high level of generality, operating in its ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims (2-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-20) are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-7, 9-20 are not patent-eligible.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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 SIGMOND can be reached at 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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 2/18/2026