DETAILED ACTION
This is in reference to communication received 21 April 2026. Cancellation of claims 3 – 4, 10 – 11 and 17 – 18 is acknowledged. Claims 1 – 2, 6, 8 – 9, 13 and 15 – 16 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 – 2, 6, 8 – 9, 13 and 15 – 16 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.
Independent claim 15, representative of claims 1 and 8, in part is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. Claim 15 recites invention directed to generating and transmitting of a fraud score.
plurality of activity logs including unique device identifiers (IDs) comprising clickstream behavioral data for interactions between a plurality of users and a plurality of websites are received, ;
a plurality of user device identities respectively corresponding to the plurality of users and representing normal clickstream behavior of the plurality of users are to generate user-device-identities are generated including a corresponding plurality of attribute-datapoints c
receiving user-device-data including identifying characteristics of the user-device accessing one or more webpages of a merchant website, and real-time click-stream behavioral data for the user-device on the merchant-website matching the user-device-data to stored user-device-identities of the plurality of user using the corresponding one of the unique-device-IDs identifying a plurality of attribute datapoints including the corresponding representation of normal clickstream behavior of the user-device; comparing the user-device-data against the user-device-identity to generate a fraud-score for the user device indicating the possibility of an abnormal behavior of the user-device; and/or a likelihood that the user device is inauthentic; and transmitting the fraud-score to a merchant-server corresponding to the merchant-website.
These limitations describe marketing/sales/advertising support activities. Providing fraud-score to a merchant when user-device accessing log of a merchant website, and real-time click-stream behavioral data for the user-device on the merchant-website is received, associated unique-device-IDs is matched to the stored user-device-identities of the plurality of user and generate a fraud-score for the user device indicating the possibility of an abnormal behavior of the user-device; and/or a likelihood that the user device is inauthentic; and providing the fraud-score to the merchant corresponding to the merchant-website.
In addition, the claimed invention further recite the additional functional element of using a classification model constructed according to one or more of: data mining logic, a neural network, case-based-reasoning, clustering, fuzzy logic, a genetic algorithm, a decision tree, and business rules, and the comparison including inputting the user device data to the classification model and comparing the user device data to the corresponding smart agent profile. Not only do these features fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see below), but it can also reasonably be seen as the conventional application of well-known machine learning concepts to build and train a model to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Represented claims 1 and 8, which do recite statutory categories (machine, product of manufacture, for example), the same analysis as above applies to these claims since the method steps are the same. However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. These claims add the generic computer components (additional elements) of a system comprising one or more hardware processors and a memory (claim 1), and a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by a processor of a machine cause the machine to perform the method addressed above (claim 8).
The processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a 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 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
When taken as an ordered combination, nothing is added that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. When viewed as a whole, the marketing activities amount to instructions applied using generic computer components.
As for dependent claims 2, 6, 9, 13 and 16, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of simply disclosing additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding descriptions of various data, what decisions may be made by the merchant based upon the received fraudulent score, what algorithm and what data elements will be used to generate fraudulent score. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural (and predominantly non-functional) details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, claims 1 – 2, 6, 8 – 9, 13 and 15 – 16 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent because cited prior art does not teach the amended invention is acknowledged and accepted.
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention utilizes a combination or panel of technologies - i.e., the recited classification model and smart agent of each identity profile - for independently analyzing the same user device data, with the analyses combining to generate the fraud score, is acknowledged and considered.
However, upon further review, it is deemed that the amended invention is not eligible for patent under 35 USC 101, and applicant’s arguments are responded to in updated Rejection under 35 USC 101 section.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nightengale et al. US Patent 8,626,663 teaches system and method for providing fraud risk score to a merchant.
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 Naresh Vig whose telephone number is (571)272-6810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 06:30a - 04:00p.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571.270.7537. 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.
/NARESH VIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
June 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights