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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed June 30, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination in this case. Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30. 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding the claims, as currently amended, that the claims recite statutory subject matter.
Applicant specifically argues that the digitizing of information makes the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
We find that the digitizing of information is, on the one hand inherently necessary for its storage in a database, and on the other hand is equivalent to translating data from one language to another. The claims in this case remain directed to grouping transactions and customers according to the risk of fraud, which is an abstract idea.
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, and 18, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1-20 –
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 10-17 are directed to a system, while claims 1-9 are directed to a method, and claims 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite grouping transactions and customers according to risk of fraud. Specifically, the claims recite determining a transaction category, determining a demographic category, combining the categories to establish a signature, assigning the customer to a profile group, determining a risk for the profile group, generating a fraud report or alert, which is described a commercial or legal interaction/ transaction and is therefore grouped within the within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as the memory and processor(s), merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the memory and processor(s) perform the steps or functions of determining a transaction category, determining a demographic category, combining the categories to establish a signature, assigning the customer to a profile group, determining a risk for the profile group, generating a fraud report or alert. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of using processor(s) and a memory to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of grouping transactions and customers according risk of fraud. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the memory and processor(s) perform the steps or functions of determining a transaction category, determining a demographic category, combining the categories to establish a signature, assigning the customer to a profile group, determining a risk for the profile group, generating a fraud report or alert. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of determining a transaction category, determining a demographic category, combining the categories to establish a signature, assigning the customer to a profile group, determining a risk for the profile group, generating a fraud report or alert Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-20, further describe the abstract idea of grouping transactions and customers according risk of fraud. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keithley et al (US 2006/0226216) in view of Russell et al (US 2007/0203826) and further in view of Stroh (US 2012/0265655).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 18 –
Keithley discloses determining a first transaction category identifier comprising a code that identifies a first transaction category for the one or more transactions; (par 34)
determining a demographic category identifier comprising a code that identifies a demographic category of the customer; (par 34)
establishing a first composite event signature for the customer by appending the transaction category identifier with the demographic category identifier; (par 35)
assigning a risk level to each respective digital data structure in the set of digital data structures based on a number of historical fraud events associated with the profile group of customers represented by each respective digital data structure; (par 38, denial data)
Russell discloses, as Keithley does not specifically disclose, creating a first digital data structure representing a first profile group of customers having the first composite event signature, wherein the first profile group of customers includes the customer;
storing the first digital data structure in a set of digital data structures, each respective digital data structure representing a different profile group of customers; (par 31, 28))
in response to detecting that a first risk level assigned to the first digital data structure exceeds a first threshold, identifying a transaction of the first transaction category initiated by the customer as a risky target event; (par 18, 28)
triggering an interdiction to delay or prevent the transaction. (par 18, 28)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Keithley and Russell in order to better monitor for suspicious activities. (Russell, par 1)
Stroh discloses, as Keithley and Russell do not specifically disclose, the digitizing of data. (abs)
It would be obvious to combine the Keithley and Russel with Stroh, in order to facilitate the storing of data.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 19 –
Keithley discloses grouping data of one or more transactions initiated by the customer within a second time frame into a second transaction category identifier comprising a code that identifies a second transaction category for the one or more transactions; (par 34, par 38)
establishing a second composite event signature for the customer by appending the second transaction category identifier with the demographic category identifier. (par 35)
Russell discloses, as Keithley does not, and in a similar field of endeavor, creating a second digital data structure representing a second profile group of customers having the second composite event signature, wherein the second profile group of customers includes the customer reassigned from the first profile group of customers; (par 31)
in response to detecting that a second risk level assigned to the second digital data structure exceeds the first risk level assigned to the first digital data structure by at least a second threshold indicative of a risk escalation for the customer, identifying a second transaction of the second transaction category initiated by the customer as a second risky target event; (par 23, 18, 28) and
triggering an interdiction to delay or prevent the second transaction. (par 23, 18, 28)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Keithley and Russell in order to better monitor for suspicious activities. (Russell, par 1)
Stroh discloses, as Keithley and Russell do not specifically disclose, the digitizing of data. (abs)
It would be obvious to combine the Keithley and Russel with Stroh, in order to facilitate the storing of data.
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 20 –
Russell discloses wherein triggering the interdiction comprises sending a message over a network to one or more of: a mobile device associated with the customer or a computing device associated with the bank to cause one or more of the mobile device or the computing device to perform the interdiction to delay to prevent the transaction. (par 18-19, 21).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Keithley and Russell in order to better monitor for suspicious activities. (Russell, par 1)
Regarding claims 4 and 13 –
Russell discloses wherein the first fraud report comprises at least one of a textual report, a graphical report, or a displayed report forwarded to one or more of: a mobile device associated with the customer or a computing device associated with the bank. (par 18-19, 21).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Keithley and Russell in order to better monitor for suspicious activities. (Russell, par 1)
Regarding claims 5 and 14 –
Keithley discloses wherein the interdiction comprises one or more of: not completing the transaction, reversing the transaction, or providing a message, to a mobile device associated with the customer, asking the customer to confirm the transaction. par 23, 32, 42)
Regarding claim 6 -
Keithley discloses wherein the second transaction of the second transaction category occurs after the transaction of the first transaction category. (par 34)
Regarding claims 7 and 15 -
Russell discloses a channel used to perform the one or more transactions. (par 5)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Keithley and Russell in order to better monitor for suspicious activities. (Russell, par 1)
Stroh discloses, as Keithley and Russell do not specifically disclose, the digitizing of data. (abs)
It would be obvious to combine the Keithley and Russel with Stroh, in order to facilitate the storing of data.
Regarding claims 8 and 16 –
Russell discloses wherein the channel comprises one or more of an online portal, a store, a phone, or an automated teller machine (ATM). (par17)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Keithley and Russell in order to better monitor for suspicious activities. (Russell, par 1)
Regarding claims 9 and 17 –
Russell discloses determining a false positive probability for the first composite event signature. (par 18, 26)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Keithley and Russell in order to better monitor for suspicious activities. (Russell, par 1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTINA OWEN SHERR whose telephone number is (571)272-6711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/Cristina Owen Sherr/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights