DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply to the amendment filed on 06/09/2026.
Claims 1, 11 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 8 and 17 were previously canceled.
Claims 10, 12, 18 and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13-16, 20 have been examined.
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
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant asserted in page 6 that “[the] present claims embody this improvement by allowing the additional scrutiny to be skipped for user accounts that have been placed on the watchlist for user accounts, a user’s electronic transfer transactions can be completed more efficiently by skipping additional scrutiny for known entities . . .”. However, idea is to blacklist or flag the transactions that pose potential problems when doing electronic transactions. The amended claim is directed to an abstract idea of keeping track of accounts opening and potential fraud – commercial interactions (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Furthermore, the Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant application and those of DDR Holdings. In DDR Holdings an improvement in web technology was used to address the problem of retaining web customers. DDR Holdings was solving a problem introduced by technology, such that it was a technological solution to a technological problem. Whereas the Applicants’ invention is a technological solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea. The claims of the instant case employ a system, a server computing device, a processor, a memory, a watchlist database suitably programmed to perform the claimed functions. In light of the Alice decision and the July 2015 Update of Interim Guidance Identifying Abstract Ideas the features such as “receiving user account information . . .”, “evaluating the user account information to assign a risk score . . .”, “determining a risk score greater than a threshold . . .”, analyzing the account for suspicious activities . . .” are not considered an improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. These features recited in the claim are only further refinements of the abstract idea. That does not change the fact that the claim is drawn to abstract ideas. There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. As discussed earlier, the claimed steps of the method are all functions that are conventional for a computer system, which in the Applicant’s invention comprises a storage device and a processor. The claimed sequence of steps comprises only "steps, specified at a high level of generality," which is insufficient to supply an "inventive concept." Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300). Also the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). In Alice also the system was specifically programmed to perform the claimed functions.
Under step 2A – Prong Two analysis, the applicant compared the case to Enfish. However, The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of Enfish. In Enfish, the claims describe the steps of configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, in both method and system claims. The focus of the claims in Enfish is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database). Specifically, the claimed invention in Enfish achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Hence, the Enfish claims were not directed to an abstract idea. On the other hand, the Applicant’s claims do not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The invention in Enfish was a technological solution to a technological problem (using self-referential table for a computer database rather than using conventional table for a computer database), whereas the Applicants’ invention is a business solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea.
Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer "specialized," nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
In Bilski and in Alice, the specific features of the claimed method/system did not change the fact that the claims were drawn to an abstract idea. This interpretation of this abstract idea is based in light of the Alice decision and the updates in the MPEP. Hence the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application: 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under step 2B analysis, the limitations are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the arguments have been considered and they are persuasive. The applicant asserted that “the combination of cited references teach or suggest analyzing the user account for suspicious activity and maintaining a watch list of accounts that are subjected to additional scrutiny for EFT deposits wherein accounts not on the watchlist are not subjected to additional scrutiny”, and Calinog “reportsCalinog reports methods for scheduling business-to-individual payments. Calinog contemplates determining financial risks (e.g., credit score) for payees but only makes a single mention of fraud stating that a business making a payment out of context may be fraudulent”. Reece “merely reports the performing assessments of customer accounts and risks of doing business with various parties. Recce references watch lists but does not teach or suggest regular, periodic monitoring of a user watchlist in order to remove accounts that are no longer a significant risk and require additional scrutiny” & Paul “reports scripts for detecting network security threats but does not teach or suggest the claimed automatically curated watchlist. Weinflash reports electronic real- time transaction security and Smith reports detection of automated social media accounts but neither remedy the deficiencies of the other references in that they do not suggest a periodically curated watchlist nor a bifurcated review policy for transactions depending on the presence of an account on the watchlist.” None of the cited references, either individual or in combination, do not establish a prima facie case for obviousness. Hence, the references did not disclose the claimed invention. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
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 1-7, 9, 11, 13-16, 20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 16 are grouped together. Claim 16, for instance, recites a computerized method for identifying a fraudulent electronic funds transfer (EFT), the method comprising: receiving, at a computing device, user account information for a new account depositing funds using EFT; evaluating the user account information to assign a risk score to the user new account; determining that the risk score for the new user account is greater than a threshold risk score; adding the new user account to a watchlist database for fraud detection; repeating the calculating step periodically for each user account in the watchlist database: and removing the user account from the watchlist database where the number of infractions for the added user account is below a monitoring threshold, wherein known user accounts on the watchlist are subjected to the calculating step before accepting EFT deposits and EFT deposits from known user accounts not on the watchlist are accepted without the calculating step, wherein calculating the number of infractions includes analyzing user account for suspicious activity and one or more of analyzing the user account information for a number of authentication infractions, analyzing user deposit records for suspicious activity, analyzing disbursement records for suspicious activity, analyzing user deposit records for deposits in bad order, and importing one or more third-party fraud risk scores, and wherein analyzing the user account for suspicious activity comprises identifying recent failed login attempts, changes to login methods, recent high-risk logins by user, and geographical location of user login. The limitations are directed to concept of quantifying risk for delivered financial items – mitigating risk – which belongs to fundamental economic practices. Hence, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a system, a server computing device, a processor, a memory, a watchlist database recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In Alice Corp., the claim recited the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer. The Court found that the recitation of the computer in the claim amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The Supreme Court also discussed this concept in an earlier case, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), where the claim recited a process for converting binary-coded-decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numbers. The Court found that the claimed process had no meaningful practical application except in connection with a computer. Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 175 USPQ at 676. The claim simply stated a judicial exception (e.g., law of nature or abstract idea) while effectively adding words that “apply it” in a computer. Id. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1 and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are merely performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device helps for fund transferring transaction is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim 2 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite concept of assigning risk weight and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims only recite additional elements (such as a server computing device, a processor) are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 3 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite assigning a risk score and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims recite additional elements (such as account application) which are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 4 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite mismatching information, identifying suspicious activity and analyzing deposit records and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim recites additional elements (such as a server computing device, a processor) which are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 5 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite mismatching information, identifying suspicious activity and analyzing deposit records and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim recites additional elements (such as a server computing device, a processor) which are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 6 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite mismatching information, identifying suspicious activity and analyzing deposit records and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim recites additional elements (such as a server computing device, a processor) which are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 7 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite analyzing account for suspicious activity by identifying a geographic location, calculating number of infractions, and entering threshold and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because recites additional elements (such as a processor, a server computing device, a database) which are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 9 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite analyzing account for suspicious activity by identifying a geographic location, calculating number of infractions, and entering threshold and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because recites additional elements (such as a processor, a server computing device, a database) which are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 11 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite calculating step by repeating the batch update automatically and based on hourly basis, and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because recites additional elements (such as a server computing device, a processor, a database) which are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 13 and 20 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite removing the user account from a database when the metrics fall below a threshold, removing when the account is inactive and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because recites additional elements (such as a server computing device, a database) which are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 14 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite marking account for further review by sending to a manual review, prompting for additional information and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because recites additional element (such as an analyst, a server computing device, a processor) which are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 15 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite marking account for further review by sending to a manual review, prompting for additional information and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because recites additional element (such as an analyst, a server computing device, a processor) which are 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13-16, 20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 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 TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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 W. Anderson, can be reached on (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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights