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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2025 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the Applicant argues the claims address the technical problem of preventing authorized fraud. The Applicant does not provide specific reasoning as to why the cited limitations provide a technical improvement that amounts to more than any alleged abstract idea and/or amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and merely restating the claim limitations without explanation or reasoning as well as concluding the claims are patent eligible is not a valid or persuasive argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2025 with respect to the 102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amendments are not disclosed by the cited reference, but does not provide any particular reasoning and does not particularly respond to the prior rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2025 with respect to the 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amendments are not disclosed by the cited references, but does not provide any particular reasoning and does not particularly respond to the prior rejection.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “method”.
Claim 1 is directed to the concept of “mitigating fraud risk” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (mitigating fraud is a type of risk mitigation) and commercial or legal interactions (business relations, sales activity are similar to transferring of funds or transactions)” in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 1 recites receiving an action notification from a customer device associated with a customer in response to the customer initiating an action associated with an account held by the customer at the provider institution; pulling user action information associated with the action; performing a fraud detection analysis based on the user action information, the fraud detection analysis comprising generating a plurality of individual risk values associated with a plurality of fraud data risk elements using the user action information; determining that the action is fraudulent based on the plurality of individual risk values associated with the plurality of fraud data risk elements; and performing a fraud mitigation action before the action has been completed based on determining that the action is fraudulent, wherein at least one fraud data risk element of the plurality of fraud data risk elements is an e-mail username or a transfer tag included in the user action information and generating the individual risk value for the e-mail username or the transfer tag includes identifying one or more fraud risk keywords within the e-mail username or the transfer tag. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as at least one processing circuit of a provider computing system associated with a provider institution, a customer device, one or more processors, and one or more memories represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of mitigating fraud risk.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of mitigating fraud risk using computer technology (e.g. one processing circuit of a provider computing system). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-15, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chamberlain US 2019/0318358.
As per claim 1: Chamberlain discloses a method comprising: receiving, by at least one processing circuit of a provider computing system associated with a provider institution, an action notification from a customer device associated with a customer in response to the customer initiating an action associated with an account held by the customer at the provider institution (Fig 4, ¶ [0055]);
Upon receiving the action notification, pulling, by the at least one processing circuit, user action information associated with the action from the customer device (Fig 4 ¶ [0055], [0041], [0043]); performing, by the at least one processing circuit, a fraud detection analysis the user action information pulled from the customer device, the fraud detection analysis comprising generating a plurality of individual risk values associated with a plurality of fraud data risk elements using the user action information (Fig 4, ¶¶ [0038]-[0039], [0041]-[0043]); determining, by the at least one processing circuit, that the action is fraudulent based on the plurality of individual risk values associated with the plurality of fraud data risk elements (Figs 3A & 4, [0047]-[0048], [0055]-[0058; and performing, by the at least one processing circuit, a fraud mitigation action before the action has been completed based on determining that the action is fraudulent (Fig 4 ‘425’, ¶¶ [0057]]-[0059], [0044]-[0046]) wherein at least one fraud data risk element of the plurality of fraud data risk elements is an e-mail username or a transfer tag included in the user action information and generating the individual risk value for the e-mail username or the transfer tag includes identifying, by the at least one processing circuit, one or more fraud risk keywords within the e-mail username or the transfer tag (¶¶ [0017] “name”, [0018] “email address”, [0020]-[0021], [0038] “name” or other beneficiary information based on one or more attributes in the electronic transaction, [0043]-[0044], [0046]-[0048).
As per claims 11 and 16: Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under the rationale of claim 1.
As per claim 2: Chamberlain further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the action is fraudulent comprises determining that one of the individual risk values of one of the fraud data risk elements exceeds an individual risk value threshold or a cumulative total of the plurality of individual risk values exceeds a cumulative total threshold (¶¶ [0045], [0048], [0055]-[0058]).
As per claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected under the rationale of claim 2.
As per claim 3: Chamberlain further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the individual risk values are weighted based on a level of correlation between each corresponding individual risk value and a likelihood of fraud and determining that the action is fraudulent comprises determining that an aggregated weighted overall risk value exceeds a weighted overall risk value threshold (¶¶ [0045], [0048], [0055]-[0058]).
As per claims 13 and 17: Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under the rationale of claim 3.
As per claim 4: Chamberlain further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the individual risk value for the e-mail username or the transfer tag comprises: determining, by the at least one processing circuit, a fraud risk keyword value for each of the one or more fraud risk keywords (¶¶ [0017], [0020]-[0021], [0038], [0043]-[0044], [0046]-[0048); and
aggregating, by the at least one processing circuit, the fraud risk keyword values for each of the one or more fraud risk keywords (¶¶ [0017], [0020]-[0021], [0038], [0043]-[0044], [0046]-[0048).
As per claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected under the rationale of claim 4.
As per claim 5: Chamberlain further discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the fraud risk keywords include one or more of transaction-related words, known company or entity names, governmental agency names, or business-related words (¶¶ [0017], [0020]-[0021], [0038], [0043]-[0044], [0046]-[0048).
As per claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected under the rationale of claim 5.
As per claim 6: Chamberlain further discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the fraud risk keyword value for each of the one or more fraud risk keywords is determined based on a frequency with which each fraud risk keyword has been used in fraudulent actions (¶¶ [0017], [0020]-[0021], [0038], [0043]-[0044], [0046]-[0048).
As per claim 7: Chamberlain further discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the one or more fraud risk keywords comprise a plurality of fraud risk keywords and, wherein generating the individual risk value for the e-mail username or the transfer tag further comprises: aggregating, by the at least one processing circuit, the fraud risk keyword values for each of the plurality of fraud risk keywords (¶¶ [0017], [0020]-[0021], [0038], [0043]-[0044], [0046]-[0048); and
applying, by the at least one processing circuit, a multiplicative factor to an aggregated total of the fraud risk keyword values based on there being multiple fraud risk keywords within the e-mail username or the transfer tag (¶¶ [0017], [0020]-[0021], [0038], [0043]-[0044], [0046]-[0048).
As per claim 9: Chamberlain further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein one fraud data risk element is one of a transaction count velocity or a transaction amount velocity of the account associated with the action and the individual risk value is determined, by the at least one processing circuit, based on one of a number of transactions on the account within an amount of time or an amount of resources transferred into or out of the account within an amount of time (¶¶ [0039], [0040], [0048], Fig 3A).
As per claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected under the rationale of claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain US 2019/0318358 in view of Milden US 2022/0270008.
As per claim 8: Chamberlain fails to explicitly disclose but Milden does disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the action is a transfer request including a memo field and one fraud data risk element is the memo field of the transfer request and the individual risk value is determined based on the memo field of the transfer request including one or more predefined words, phrases, or emojis, the one or more predefined words, phrases, or emojis being used in at least one fraudulent transaction (¶¶ [0046], [0059]-[0066], abstract, Figs 2 & 3).
As per claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected under the rationale of claim 8.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain US 2019/0318358 in view of Benkreira US 2023/0059064.
As per claim 10: Chamberlain fails to explicitly disclose but Benkreira does disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the fraud mitigation action comprises one or more of preventing the customer from opening a new customer account, preventing the customer from registering an e-mail address with an opened new customer account, preventing the customer from registering a phone number with the opened new customer account, preventing the customer from using an e-mail address or a phone number to register for a new transfer service token, or performing an additional customer validation operation (¶¶ [0096]-[0101], Fig 3).As per claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected under the rationale of claim 10.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692