DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/17/25 has been entered.
Claims amended: independent claims 1 and 11.
Claim Status
Claim status: claims 1-20 are pending.
1) System1: 1-10, and
2) method1: 11-20.
The pending claims comprise 2 groups of similar scope.
As of 12/17/25, independent claim 1 is as followed:
(Previously Presented) A system configured to characterize use of a user interface through which work items are accessed, the system comprising:
[I] one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
[1] effectuate presentation of a user interface on a computing platform associated with a fraud review agent, the user interface being configured to display work item pages, the work item pages being associated with work item records that are created when users of an online platform are flagged for potentially fraudulent activities by an automated flagging system, the work item records describing fraud resolution tasks to carry out to resolve the potentially fraudulent activities of the users;
[2] obtain input information characterizing input into the user interface by the fraud review agent, the input including selection of a graphical user interface element corresponding to a restriction placed on individual users which limits future flagging of the individual users for individual potentially fraudulent activities;
[3] in response to the input into the user interface, modify an operation of the automated flagging system and limit the future flagging of the individual users for the individual potentially fraudulent activities to reflect the restriction;
[4] monitor the input into the user interface by the fraud review agent and determine a number of times the fraud review agent places the restriction on the individual users as part of carrying out the fraud resolution tasks;
[5] compare the number of times the fraud review agent places the restriction on the individual users to a set of thresholds and determine whether the restriction is being overused or underused by the fraud review agent in performance of the fraud resolution tasks, such that when the number of times the fraud review agent places the restriction on the individual users exceeds an overuse threshold, a determination of overuse is made, and when the number of times the fraud review agent places the restriction on the individual users falls below an underuse threshold, a determination of underuse is made; and
[6] in response to determining the overuse or the underuse of the restriction by the fraud review agent in the performance of the fraud resolution tasks, generate a notification and distribute the notification to the computing platform of the fraud review agent and/or one or more other computing platforms, the notification including an indication that the restriction is being overused or underused by the fraud review agent.
Note: numerals [1]-[6] are added to the beginning of each step for reference purpose.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
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.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, 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 include:
(1) a method of organizing human activities,
(2) an idea of itself, or
(3) a mathematical relationship or formula.
In details:
(1) Certain method of organizing human activities --
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-20:
Claim category:
1) Machine/System1 & 2: 1-10, and
2) Process/Method1 & 2: 11-20.
Analysis:
System1,2 claims 1-10 are directed to a system for creating and managing a workflow using GUI elements for a fraud resolution workflow comprising a processor and program instructions to carry out for steps of: (1) presenting a work page on a display of an interface (GUI), (2) obtaining input information including selection of a restriction, (3) modifying an operation of automated the flagging features, (4) monitoring input by the fraud reviewing agent, (5) comparing number of restrictions to fraud threshold level to determine fraudulent activity, (6) outputting an indication of the restriction and notifying the indication to related entities. (Step 1:Yes).
Method1,2 claims 11-20 are directed to a method for creating and managing a workflow using GUI elements for a fraud resolution workflow comprising a processor and program instructions to carry out for steps of: (1) presenting a work page on a display of an interface (GUI), (2) obtaining input information including selection of a restriction, (3) modifying an operation of automated the flagging features, (4) monitoring input by the fraud reviewing agent, (5) comparing number of restrictions to fraud threshold level to determine fraudulent activity, (6) outputting an indication of the restriction and notifying the indication to related entities. (Step 1:Yes).
PNG
media_image1.png
303
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the claims 1-20 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method of creating and managing a workflow using GUI elements for a fraud resolution workflow comprising a processor and program instructions to carry out for steps of: (1) presenting a work page on a display of an interface (GUI), (2) obtaining input information including selection of a restriction, (3) modifying an operation of automated the flagging features, (4) monitoring input by the fraud reviewing agent, (5) comparing number of restrictions to fraud threshold level to determine fraudulent activity, (6) outputting an indication of the restriction and notifying the indication to related entities, is a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the use of at least one processor.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Furthermore, claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea related to “[5] compare the number of times the fraud review agent places the restriction on the individual users user to a set of thresholds to determine whether the restriction is being overused or underused by the fraud review agent in performance of the fraud resolution tasks, such that when the number of times the fraud review agent places the restriction on the individual users exceeds an overuse threshold, a determination of overuse is made, and when the number of times the fraud review agent places the restriction on the individual users falls below an underuse threshold, a determination of underuse is made;” constituting an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The claim steps in the context of the claim encompass a user determining when the restriction items exceeds a limit, which is a type of “observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.”
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for creating and managing a workflow using GUI elements for a fraud resolution workflow using GUI elements for fraud resolution tasks, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] effectuate presentation (image) on a GUI Data displaying.
Work item pages (data)…
[2] obtain input information (data) Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IESA).
[3] modify an operation of flagging system. Business activity/workflow.
[4] monitor the input (data) to determine… Business activity/workflow
[5] compare times (data) to determine… Mental step/analysis-compare
[6] generate and distribute notification (data) Data transmitting, IESA.
Steps [1], [2] and [6] are data displaying, data gathering, and data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [3], [4] and [5] are well known business activity for creating and managing a workflow using GUI elements for fraud resolution workflow/tasks by monitoring a membership platform, flagging items for potential fraud, designating the flagged items as work items, distributing the work items to user to resolve, and obtaining a resolution.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, i.e. processor with a software application thereon, automated flagging system. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 an abstract idea for facilitating resolution of work items within a fraud resolution workflow comprising the cited steps above, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In particular, the claim limits of “[I] an interface that is configured to display work item pages, receives one or more inputs via an enterprise payment services bus; [II] a fraud review agent as a component of a computer processor and coupled to the database and the interface,” are claimed and described at high level of generality and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment.
The processor, computing platform, computing platform, automated flagging system, work pages, and work item records automated flagging system, work pages, and work item records in all the steps is recited a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device performing generic computer functions of: receiving information/data about work item, monitoring input, comparing the number of times … threshold, generating a notification and distributing the notification, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[6] above.
Steps [1], [2] and [6] are data displaying, data gathering, and data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [3], [4] and [5] are well known business activity for managing a workflow using GUI elements for fraud resolution tasks by monitoring a membership platform, flagging items for potential fraud, designating the flagged items as work items, distributing the work items to user to resolve, and obtaining a resolution.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, i.e. processor with a software application thereon, automated flagging system. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 an abstract idea for managing a workflow using GUI elements for fraud resolution tasks comprising the cited steps above, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In particular, the claim limits of “[I] an interface that is configured to display work item pages, receives one or more inputs via an enterprise payment services bus; [II] a fraud review agent as a component of a computer processor and coupled to the database and the interface,” are claimed and described at high level of generality and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment.
The processor, computing platform, computing platform, automated flagging system, work pages, and work item records automated flagging system, work pages, and work item records in all the steps is recited a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device performing generic computer functions of: receiving information/data about work item, monitoring input, modify an operation of the flagging system, comparing the number of times … threshold, generating a notification and distributing the notification, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [3]-[5], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system or method claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, i.e. a processor, a memory to store a set of instructions. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software for carrying out the managing a workflow using GUI elements for fraud resolution tasks comprising the cited steps above are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
As for dep. claims 2-4 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the analysis (determining) the quality grade, these further limits the abstract idea of the analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2-4 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 2-3 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the workflow information, workflow resolution tasks, etc., these further limits the abstract idea of the workflow information features, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2-3 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 4-6 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the workflow features, restriction criteria and others, these further limits the abstract idea of the workflow information features, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 4-6 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 7-9 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the workflow work item features, work pages, creator profiles, subscriber profiles, and others, these further limits the abstract idea of the workflow work item features, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 7-9 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 10 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the user interface features, displaying a queue of work items, etc., these further limits the abstract idea of the workflow information on the interface, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 10 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Claims 11-20 are the method claims of system claim 1-10 and have similar limitation as in claims 1-10. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Closest Prior Art
US 2021/0.019.754 teaches a method of detecting fraudulent activity includes a fraud control rule associated with a payment account parameters of a payment account by analyzing data using fraud control rule and generating response message. It does not deals with monitoring user’s restriction using fraud review agent and overuse and underuse of the restriction features.
WO 00/40051 teaches the detecting and preventing fraudulent use in a communication network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment and arguments filed 12/17/25 have been fully considered and the results are as followed:
1) 112 (b) rejection: none.
2) 103 Rejection: none.
2) 101 Rejection:
1) Applicant’s comments on pages 11-13 that the examiner fails to identify the abstract idea in Prong I and Prong 2, step 2A, by asserting six different statements of semantically discrete concepts of abstract idea, this is not found to be persuasive. The minute differences in the six different statements are merely in a few words and they do not change the overall scope of the claim which is a system/method for “creating and managing a workflow using GUI elements for a fraud resolution workflow using GUI elements for fraud resolution tasks, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] effectuate presentation (image) on a GUI Data displaying.
Work item pages (data)…
[2] obtain input information (data) Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IESA).
[3] modify an operation of flagging system. Business activity/workflow.
[4] monitor the input (data) to determine… Business activity/workflow
[5] compare times (data) to determine… Mental step/analysis-compare
[6] generate and distribute notification (data) Data transmitting, IESA.
Steps [1], [2] and [6] are data displaying, data gathering, and data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [3], [4] and [5] are well known business activity for creating and managing a workflow using GUI elements for fraud resolution workflow/tasks by monitoring a membership platform, flagging items for potential fraud, designating the flagged items as work items, distributing the work items to user to resolve, and obtaining a resolution.”
PNG
media_image2.png
526
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Step 2B Analysis: None.
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.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689