Non-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 .
A request for continued examination[RCEX] under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on [ 02/02/2026 ] has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to applicant’s Amendments/Remarks filed on 02/02/2026.
Priority Date: Prov.(01/17/2024)
Claim Status:
Amended claims:1, 9, 11-12, 15, and 19-21
Canceled[previously] claim: 5
Pending claims : 1-4, and 6-21
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 1-4, and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (Step-2A) If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, (Step-2B) it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include: (a) Mental processes; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practice; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal behavior or Relations between People]; and (c) Mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis is based on the Revised (2019 PEG)-(see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c) &(f)-(g)).
[Step-1] The claims are directed to a method/system/machine, which are a statutory category of invention.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for online transaction fraud mitigation.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The Method claim 1 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim 1 recites the limitations of:
identifying, by a first process running on a merchant …, a plurality of contextual data elements associated with a transaction request received via a user interface application running on a user …, wherein the user interface application is associated with a corresponding …side application running on the merchant …;
formatting, by the first process, the plurality of contextual data elements using an extensible mark-up language (XML);
generating, by the first process, a transaction verification request comprising a plurality of XML-formatted contextual data elements associated with the transaction request;
transmitting, by the first process, the transaction verification request to a second process executing on a verification … associated with a user account;
computing, by the second process, a fraud risk score for the transaction request, based on the plurality of XML-formatted contextual data elements provided in the transaction verification request; and
executing, by the second process, one or more actions by the verification … based on the risk score computed by the second process, wherein the one or more actions comprise:
requesting a first secondary authentication if the computed risk score is within a first range, and requesting a second secondary authentication if the computed risk score is within a second range.
The claimed method/system/machine simply describes series of steps for online transaction fraud mitigation.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via human commercial or business or transactional activities/interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human business activity. For example, without the structure elements language, the claim encompasses the activities that can be performed manually between the users and a third party. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are business interaction/sale activity that falls within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
[Step-2A]-Prong 2:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, these 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 the abstract idea.
[Step-2B]
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible.
The pending claims disclose tasks that can be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. The 2019 Revised Guidance explains that “mental processes” include acts that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a generic computer component performs the acts. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14. For example, the claims disclose .... These tasks may be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper.
To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See 2019 Revised Guidance.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including independent claims 15, and 20. Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-4, 6-14, 16-19, and 21 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims.
The dependent claims 2-4, 6-14, 16-19, and 21 are directed towards:
Using in claims [2-4,&16-17], the plurality of contextual data elements associated with a transaction request correspond to a first purchase context data retrieved from the user interface application, running on the user device, and a second purchase context data retrieved from the server-side application, running on the merchant server, comprises one or more identifier and version related data associated with the user interface application, and further comprises, a device geographical location data, and one or more device fingerprint data comprising a device screen resolution and aspect ratio;
Claims [6-8,&19], one or more attributes associated with a purchase item corresponding to the transaction request; wherein the one or more actions executed by the verification server, based on the risk score, comprises a request for a secondary authentication if the computed risk score is greater than a first predetermined threshold value and less than a second predetermined threshold value, further comprises a transmission of an approval message in response to the transaction verification request, if the computed risk score exceeds a second predetermined threshold value.
Claims [9-12], a request for a secondary authentication if the computed risk score is greater than a first predetermined threshold value and less than a second predetermined threshold value; wherein an authentication strength factor associated with the request for the secondary authentication is determined, by the verification server, based on a computed value of the risk score, wherein a strong secondary authentication factor corresponds to a validation of an encrypted authentication token wirelessly retrieved, via the user device, from a contactless card associated with the user, an wherein a weak secondary authentication factor corresponds to a validation of a one-time-password transmitted, by the user device, to the verification server; and
Claims [13-14, and 21], wherein a computation of the fraud risk score by the second process is based on a fraud assessment data model, wherein a set of model parameters, associated with the fraud assessment data model, comprise a plurality of purchase context data; wherein the fraud assessment data model is trained on data associated with a plurality of resolved transaction outcomes and corresponding sets of purchase context data, and a request for a secondary authentication if the computed fraud risk score is greater than a first predetermined threshold value and less than a second predetermined threshold value
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under same rationale. Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-4, 6-14. 16-19, and 21 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al (US 20240193600 A1) in view of Thakore (US 11831644 B1), and Hamidi et al (US 20160044048 A1).
Ref claim 1, Liao discloses a method for fraud mitigation in online transaction processing, the method comprising:
identifying, by a first process running on a merchant server, a plurality of contextual data elements associated with a transaction request received via a user interface application running on a user device, wherein the user interface application is associated with a corresponding server-side application running on the merchant server (para [0019], Fig.1; a networked system 116 provides server-side functionality via network 110 [internet] to a user of the client device 108…[0040]; communication component 440 may detect identifiers include RFID tag…[0041]; via a JavaScript library embeded into a merchant’s checkout form to handle credit card information…[0055]; via provide verification of payment cards that facilitate …online transactions [probability of not being fraudulent]…improvement of a computer/server…[0056], via ; payment card verification…in an attempt to mitigate fraud…an image verification/a user making the online transaction…[0058], Fig.6; user interfaces for an initial verification…[0059]; via interface 615 is shown for display on client device 108/online merchant [server/website]… );
[[ formatting, by the first process, the plurality of contextual data elements using an extensible mark-up language (XML); generating, by the first process, a transaction verification request comprising a plurality of XML-formatted contextual data elements associated with the transaction request;]]
transmitting, by the first process, the transaction verification request to a second process executing on a verification server associated with a user account; computing, by the second process, a fraud risk score [FRS] for the transaction request, based on the plurality of XML-formatted contextual data elements provided in the transaction verification request (para [0069], Fig.10, via the application server 122 can compute a score to determine an indicator of risk [probability of fraud] …[0099]; via transaction includes a type of payment card verification/indicates two-factor authentication…); and
[[executing, by the second process, one or more actions by the verification server based on the risk score computed by the second process]],
wherein the one or more actions comprise:
requesting a first secondary authentication if the computed risk score is within a first range, and requesting a second secondary authentication if the computed risk score is within a second range (para [0061]; via the website [server 121] can send an API request to API server 118 to complete the payment card verification process…[0070]; via a machine learning [ML] model is utilized during a given transaction to generate score…a set of metadata […a verification details…]…and then provided as output data from the ML models …to a range of values [e.g., between 0.0 and 1.0, or other values]…[0071], the ML model indicates that a fraud detection threshold is satisfied…a verification process…by the subject system…).
Liao does not explicitly disclose the step of formatting, by the first process, the plurality of contextual data elements using an extensible mark-up language (XML); generating, by the first process, a transaction verification request comprising a plurality of XML-formatted contextual data elements associated with the transaction request;
However, Thakore being in the same field of invention discloses the step of formatting, by the first process, the plurality of contextual data elements using an extensible mark-up language (XML); generating, by the first process, a transaction verification request comprising a plurality of XML-formatted contextual data elements associated with the transaction request (Abstract; Systems and Method for anomaly detection…For Ex. sensor data/compared with contextual data …, Col. 19, lines 25-41; Fig.1; a type of data utilized to communicate …of the remote system 104…may use any suitable system 104 may use any suitable format of data to communicate. For Example, the data may be in a human readable format such as text data formatted as XML and/or other mark-up language …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Liao to include the disclosures as taught by Thakore to facilitate online transaction fraud detection using XML-formatted contextual data elements..
Liao does not explicitly disclose the step of: executing, by the second process, one or more actions by the verification server based on the risk score computed by the second process.
However, Hamidi being in the same field of invention discloses the step of: executing, by the second process, one or more actions by the verification server based on the risk score computed by the second process (para [0024], Fig. 1; via Fraud detection system 100, automated secondary linking…generate fraud reports 125…[0029]; via the fraud data 120 is identified in another fraud report…[0036]; via the sparse logic 310/ method to identify specific types of data from fraud reports…For Ex. by utilizing XML tagging conventions …[0040], Fig. 40, via a method 400 associated with automated secondary linking for fraud detection systems…[0050]; via parse logic 720 for generating fraud data to detect fraud…executed by processor 702… ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Liao to include the disclosures as taught by Hamidi to facilitate online transaction fraud detection using XML-tag with secondary linking.
Ref claim 2, Liao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of contextual data elements associated with a transaction request correspond to a first purchase context data retrieved from the user interface application, running on the user device, and a second purchase context data, which is the purchase context data retrieved from the server-side application, running on the merchant server (para [0019], Fig.1; a networked system 116 provides server-side functionality via network 110 [internet] to a user of the client device 108…[0040]; communication component 440 may detect identifiers include RFID tag…[0041];a JavaScript library embeded into a merchant’s checkout form to handle credit card information…[0055]; via provide verification of payment cards that facilitate …online transactions [probability of not being fraudulent]…improvement of a computer/server…).
Ref claims 3-4, Liao discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the first purchase context data retrieved from the user interface application comprises one or more identifier and version related data associated with the user interface application, and wherein the first purchase context data retrieved from the user interface application further comprises a device geographical location data, and one or more device fingerprint data comprising a device screen resolution and aspect ratio (para [0021], via an API server 118…a database 126… [0094]; a geolocation…).
Claim 5, (Canceled).
Ref claim 6,Liao discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the second purchase context data retrieved from the server-side application further comprises, one or more attributes associated with a purchase item corresponding to the transaction request (para [0021], via an API server 118…a database 126…[0017]; via a check out to purchase an item or service …).
Ref claim 7, Liao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions executed by the verification server based on the risk score comprises a transmission of a rejection message in response to the transaction verification request, if the computed risk score is less than a first predetermined threshold value (para [0069], Fig. 10, via the application server 122 can compute a score to determine an indicator of risk [probability of fraud] …).
Ref claim 8, Liao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions executed by the verification server, based on the risk score, comprises a transmission of an approval message in response to the transaction verification request, if the computed risk score exceeds a second predetermined threshold value (para [0069], Fig. 10, via the application server 122 can compute a score to determine an indicator of risk [probability of fraud] …).
Ref claim 9[amended], Liao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions executed by the verification server, based on the risk score, comprises the request for the first secondary authentication or the second secondary authentication if the computed risk score is less than a second predetermined threshold value (para [0069], Fig. 10, via the application server 122 can compute a score to determine an indicator of risk [probability of fraud] …[0099]; via transaction includes a type of payment card verification/indicates two-factor authentication…).
Ref claim 10, Liao discloses the method of claim 9, wherein an authentication strength factor associated with the request for the secondary authentication is determined, by the verification server, based on a computed value of the risk score (para [0099]; via transaction includes a type of payment card verification/indicates two-factor authentication…).
Ref claim 11 [amended], Liao discloses the method of claim 10, wherein a strong secondary authentication factor corresponds to the second range, wherein the second secondary authentication utilizes a validation of an encrypted authentication token wirelessly retrieved, via the user device, from a contactless card associated with the user (para [0099]; via transaction includes a type of payment card verification/indicates two-factor authentication…).
Ref claim 12 [amended], Liao discloses the method of claim 10, wherein a weak secondary authentication factor corresponds to the first range, wherein the first secondary authentication utilizes a validation of a one-time-password transmitted, by the user device, to the verification server (para [0099]; via transaction includes a type of payment card verification/indicates two-factor authentication…).
Ref claims 13-14, Liao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a computation of the fraud risk score by the second process is based on a fraud assessment data model, wherein a set of model parameters, associated with the fraud assessment data model, comprise a plurality of purchase context data, and wherein the fraud assessment data model is trained on data associated with a plurality of resolved transaction outcomes and corresponding sets of purchase context data (para [0069], Fig. 10, via the application server 122 can compute a score to determine an indicator of risk [probability of fraud] …).
Claim 15 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claims 16-17 are rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 2-3 respectively.
Claim 18 is rejected as per the reasons set forth in claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected as per the reasons set forth in claims 7-8 respectively.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Ref claim 21, Liao disclose the non-transitory computer-accessible medium of claim 20, wherein the one or more actions executed by the verification server, based on the risk score, comprises a request for a secondary authentication if the computed fraud risk score is greater than a first predetermined threshold value and less than a second predetermined threshold value (para [0077]; Fig. 10; via the application server 122 can compute a score to determine an indicator of risk [e.g., probability of fraud] in accepting the previous payment card verification…Merchant can decide additional verification process, such as score/threshold value indicate to the online merchant/verification is greater than a threshold value [ online Merchant to require more additional verifications), and that in such an instance an additional verification process[implied secondary authentication] initiated to mitigate likely fraudulent transaction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/02/2026 have been fully considered and they are deemed to be non-persuasive:
Response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection is addressed in the above rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues further in substance that "The claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea and the claims Recite ‘Significantly More’ than abstract idea” and noted PEG-2019 [Step-2A-Prong One-Prong two, Step-2B].
Applicant also cited analogy with the court cases such as, Ex. 35, and BASCOM Global Internet v AT & T Mobility has been found as “significantly more”.
In addition to 101 rejections Applicant noted about 103 rejections with applied prior arts.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Updated claim analysis as a whole including amended features are provided above/again based on the latest Patent Eligibility Guidance [2019-PEG>Step 2A-Prong 1 & Prong 2-Step-2B].
Claims 1-4, and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The rejection of the previous action was a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank I'ntl. 573 U.S. (2014); Under Alice.
Applicant REMARKS:
Applicant noted that,: “The Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 18, 2025 (hereinafter "Non-Final Office Action") has been reviewed and carefully considered. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently stand rejected. In this response, claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 15, 16, and 18-20 are amended, claim 5 is cancelled, and new claim 21 is added. Support for these amendments and the new claim can be found in at least paragraphs [0048] and [0067] of the originally filed specification. No new matter has been added.
In view of the foregoing amendments and following remarks, favorable reconsideration and allowance of the present application are respectfully requested.”
I. Interview Summary:
“ A telephonic interview was conducted on August 13, 2025, between Examiner Ali and Applicant's representative, David Bancroft (Reg. No. 73,666). Applicant appreciates the Examiner's time and preparation for the call. During the interview, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 were discussed in view of Applicant's interview agenda. No agreement was reached.” (Noted).
II. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101:
“Claims 1-4, and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. …;…;…;
Step 2A, Prong One Claim 1 Does Not Recite an Abstract Idea.
The Non-Final Office Action alleges that claim 1 is directed to the "certain methods of organizing human activity" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. Non-Final Office Action, page 4….;…;
Mental process grouping: The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper," to be an abstract idea. …;…;…;
Step 2A, Prong Two Claim 1 Integrates the Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application However, assuming arguendo that the claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis. …;…;…;
Step 2B-The Claims Include "Significantly More"
Even if, arguendo, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea under the analysis of Step 2A, which Applicant contends that it is not, the claim includes "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea and, therefore, would satisfy Step 2B of the Alice framework. Per MPEP 2106.05(I)(V), …content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v…;…;…;Similar to claim 2 of Example 35, claim 1 of the present application recites a combination of steps (…) that …fraud risk score.
Based at least on the reasons above, amended claim 1 is directed toward patent- eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn. …;…;”
In Response: Examiner Disagrees:
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 1: A method for deriving financial information from online purchase transactions is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of:
(Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(identifying, by a first process running on a merchant …, … comprising one or more identifier and version related data associated with the …-side application; formatting the plurality of contextual data elements using an extensible mark-up language (XML); generating a transaction verification… the transaction request; transmitting the transaction verification request … associated with a user account; computing, by the second process, a fraud risk score … the plurality of XML-formatted contextual data elements provided in the transaction verification request; and executing, by the second process,…, wherein the one or more actions comprise: requesting a first secondary authentication …, and requesting a second …computed risk score is within a second range.)
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping (b) of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions’).
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of:
(identifying, by a first process running on a merchant …, … comprising one or more identifier and version related data associated with the …-side application; formatting the plurality of contextual data elements using an extensible mark-up language (XML); generating a transaction verification… the transaction request; transmitting the transaction verification request … associated with a user account; computing, by the second process, a fraud risk score … the plurality of XML-formatted contextual data elements provided in the transaction verification request; and executing, by the second process,…, wherein the one or more actions comprise: requesting a first secondary authentication …, and requesting a second …computed risk score is within a second range.),
do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. “identifying…; formatting….;generating…; transmitting…; computing…; and executing, by the second process… within a second range.”)
do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification [0026]: processor, memory, instructions, storage medium, and electrical communication) as tools to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (g)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Alice-Step (2B): Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., processor, machine learning, equations, instructions, memory, electrical communication, and storage medium) amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or merely using generic components as tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Moreover, In support of “Mental Process ”or “Method of organizing Human activity”: It is to be noted that “the claimed invention is similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mental processes: “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind ). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), 2106.05(a)(g)(h)”
Applicant’s citation of BASCOM is non-persuasive because the claims at issue in BASCOM are readily distinguishable over the instant claims. In BASCOM v. AT&T: The claimed invention is able to provide individually customizable filtering at the remote ISP server by taking advantage of the technical capability of certain communication networks. …recite a system for filtering Internet content. The claimed filtering system is located on a remote ISP server that associates each network account with (1) one or more filtering schemes and (2) at least one set of filtering elements from a plurality of sets of filtering elements, thereby allowing individual network accounts to customize the filtering of Internet traffic associated with the account. For example, one filtering scheme could be “a word-screening type filtering scheme” and one set of filtering elements (from a plurality of sets) could be a “master list [] of disallowed words or phrases together with [an] individual [list of] words, phrases or rules.” Id. at 4:30-35.
Moreover, Applicant’s referring, in claim 2 of example 35 from the USPTO Guidelines, what made the claim directed to patent eligible subject matter is “…the combination of the steps (e.g., the ATM providing a random code, the mobile communication device’s generation of the image having encrypted code data in response to the random code, the ATM’s decryption and analysis of the code data, and the subsequent determination of whether the transaction should proceed based on the analysis of the code data) operates in a non-conventional and non‐generic way to ensure that the customer’s identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone. In combination, these steps do not represent merely gathering data for comparison or security purposes, but instead set up a sequence of events that address unique problems associated with bank cards and ATMs (e.g., the use of stolen or “skimmed” bank cards and/or customer information to perform unauthorized transactions). Examiner respectfully disagrees with the analogy of claims 1-4, and 6-21 of the present application to claim 2 of example 35 from the USPTO Guidelines.
In contrast, the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related or economic problem and are thus incomparable to the claims at issue in BASCOM or Ex. 35.
III. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant argued that, “Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0193600 A1 to Liao et al. (hereinafter "Liao") in view of United States Patent No. 11,831,644 B1 to Thakore (hereinafter "Thakore"), and United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0044048 Al to Hamidi et al. (hereinafter "Hamidi"). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection, and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection.
Claim 1 has been amended to includes features from claim 5 and now recites, in part with added emphasis: …;…;..;
Therefore, Liao, Thakore, and Hamidi, either separately or in combination, do not teach or suggest all features of amended claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn. Applicant further respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 15 and 20 also be withdrawn, for at least the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 and due to the subject matter recited by claims 15 and 20….;…;”
In response: Examiner Disagrees with applicant’s assertions:
However, Liao et al discloses [obviously] all limitations in views of Thakore and Hamdi as stated above.
Moreover, Liao discloses [obviously] the latest amended elements such as; wherein the one or more actions comprise: requesting a first secondary authentication if the computed risk score is within a first range, and requesting a second secondary authentication if the computed risk score is within a second range; via (para [0061]; via the website [server 121] can send an API request to API server 118 to complete the payment card verification process…[0070]; via a machine learning [ML] model is utilized during a given transaction to generate score…a set of metadata […a verification details…]…and then provided as output data from the ML models …to a range of values [e.g., between 0.0 and 1.0, or other values]…[0071], the ML model indicates that a fraud detection threshold is satisfied…a verification process…by the subject system…).
CONCLUSION
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. Carpenter et al (US 11087328 B2) discloses Secure Mobile Device Credential Provisioning Using Risk Decision Non-overrides.
2. Wong et al (US 20200097960-A1) discloses Methods and Systems for Provisioning to Computing Devices with Payment credentials.
3. Sadaghiani et al (US 20190019109-A1) discloses System and Methods for Calibrating a Machine Learning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, ABHISHEK VYAS can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691