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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received October 27, 2025. Claim(s) 5, 9-10, 15 and 19-20 have been canceled. Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-14 and 16-18 are pending and addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Priority
Application No. 18472017 filed 09/21/2023 is a Continuation in Part of 18145627 , filed 12/22/2022 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein 18145627 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63294406 , filed 12/29/2021
Applicant Name/Assignee: Mastercard International Incorporated
Inventor Name: Mehrhoff, Shawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted 12/09/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues that the amended limitations satisfy the 101 statute for patent eligibility under the 2 step analysis. Applicant discusses the step 2 analysis guidance and requirements pointing different court decisions (Enfish, Thales Visionix V US and Alice), the USPTO 101 guidance and MPEP 2106.07(a) 2106.07(a) (I) directions. Applicant argues that according to the Guidance when considering the abstract category of mental processes, the standard is whether the claim limitations can be performed entirely within the human mind pointing to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, SRI Int'l V Cisco; Cybersource, Research Corp Techs V Microsoft; SiRF Tech Inc V Int'l Trade Comm'n. Applicant argues the current limitations cannot reasonably be performed entirely within the human mind and therefore are not directed toward mental processes. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant's interpretation. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III, discloses "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. CyberSource Corp. V. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the 'basic tools of scientific and technological work' that are open to all." 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk V. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ( 2012) ("[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker V. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)". Examples of mental processes include "observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions". The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed" conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. V. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. The claim limitations recite "receiving message containing data the human mind is capable of observing a message containing data; "identifying a plurality of accounts based on message" the human mind is capable of reading the message and identifying accounts through evaluation and judgment; "generate a scaled score representing likelihood of settlement the human mind is capable of calculating a score either mentally or with pen and paper; "determine a cost to execute payment for each accounts on corresponding date", the human mind through evaluation and judgment determine a cost to execute a payment on corresponding dates"; "output costs and score the human mind with pen and paper is capable of outputting the results of the calculated score and determined cost. "receive request and scores requesting the payment transaction the human mind is capable of observing a request containing data", accordingly the combination of limitations above can be implemented entirely in the human mind or with pen and paper. The additional limitations "initiate a payment transaction" can be implemented manually or with a computer and is not a process which can be implemented by the human mind. However, the claim limitations as a whole are not directed toward initiating a payment but instead analyzing received data which is used to calculate likelihood scores and determine cost for a payment on determined dates for use in a transaction request to a merchant. The initiate payment step is merely ancillary conclusory step implemented as a result of the analysis, calculations and determinations. This is because when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward determining likelihood scores of probability of payments and determining cost with respect to specified payment date to provide to the merchant in order to mitigate risk when a payment is transacted. The examiner maintains that the claimed limitations when considered as a whole is directed toward mental concepts.
In the remarks applicant argues that the limitations when considered as a whole or combination of parts is non-routine and unconventional. The limitations which include responsive to receipt of transaction data generating a score likelihood of payment settlement on a date includes predicting estimated future available balance in corresponding accounts, outputting scores, receiving account selection from merchant and initiating payments is unconventional and improved technical process for enabling merchants and payment participants to benefit from predictive insights by present technology. Applicant's argument is not persuasive. The limitations "responsive to receipt of transaction data generating a score likelihood of payment settlement on a date includes predicting estimated future available balance in corresponding accounts, outputting scores" similar to Electric Power Group, merely analyze received data and output the results with the courts have determined to be conventional application of technology. The limitations "receiving account selection from merchant and initiating payments" is a standard process in payment of transactions. The examiner notes that applicant does not point to any or explain how any of the high level functions as a combination is unconventional technical process. Applicant's argument focus on the abstract idea as unconventional not the technology. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach "identifying a plurality of accounts corresponding to the account holder based on the payment transaction message", the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Albright teaches Col 5-6 teaches the engine counting payment card transaction request within the zone, determines monetary amounts and teaches each card transaction is associated with time period zones and the amount for the card transaction within a fraud score range within a certain period for potentially compromised cards from the same stripe (identifying information). In col 7 the prior art teaches detecting compromise event, identifying plurality of cards initiated payment card transaction at compromised entity within time period. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to transmit likelihood scores of transaction costs to merchants in connection with the monitoring of Albright. Applicant’s argument is moot as a new reference has been applied in response to the submitted amendments.
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 1-4, 6-8, 11-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claims 1-4 and 6-8:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. System claim 1 recites operations which include 1) receive transaction message 2) identifying plurality of accounts corresponding to account holder based on message 3) generate scaled score of probability 4) predicting estimated future available balance in corresponding accounts (5) determine cost to execute transaction payment (6) output plurality of cost and scaled scores corresponding to accounts and dates to a merchant (7) receive transaction request (8) initiate payment transaction. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic system comprising one or more processors and/or transceivers programmed to perform the operations of the abstract idea. The claimed physical structures (processors) are generic computer components and tools to perform the mental processes. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates functions that could reasonable be performed using mental concepts, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. That is, other than reciting one or more programmed processors and/or transceivers of a generic, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from being reasonably performed using mental processes. The steps recite steps that can easily be performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving data which mimics mental processes of observation. The limitation(s) identify accounts, generate scaled score, predicting estimated future available balance in corresponding account, determine a cost, receive a transaction request, output scores and cost and initiate a payment transaction mimic mental processes of analysis. With respect to the “generate scaled score”, the court (Gottschalk v Benson) also has “treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. Therefore, the limitations, mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation and opinion, and communication of result which, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLl Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Furthermore, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward the generation of scaled scores representing likelihood of settlement of transactions on a date for each of the plurality of accounts and performing a transaction from selected accounts. Claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, scoring settlement probability and performing a transaction, not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “Computer-Implemented Systems and Methods for payment routing” and discloses, in the Background section, existing payment systems routing payments lead to suboptimal payment processing failed transactions leading to higher costs associated with settling transactions and that it is needed to improve routing methods (¶ 0004). The Specification describes generating a scaled score representing the likelihood of transaction settlements which is outputted to the merchant with an indicator of whether the payment processing was completed (¶ 0007-0008, 0010). The specification discloses the advantage of applying the scaled score as it related to scoring the probability of the transaction settling on a specific rail and date for the merchant to advantageously determine the lowest probabilistic rail cost within a range of settlement dates. ((¶ 0089-0090). Accordingly, the specification makes clear that the generation of the scaled score is to output a risk indicator in a transaction process. Such concepts are found in the sub-category of sales activities and fundamental economical practices.
These concepts determined above are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include one or more processors and/or transceivers.
The additional element to perform the operation “receive a payment transaction message…containing data…”, “output a plurality of costs and the plurality of scaled scores” and “receive a transaction request”, which According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The additional elements “one or more processors and/or transceivers” is applied to perform the operations “identify a plurality of accounts”, “generate a scaled score”, “determine a cost” and “initiate a payment transaction”, the operations performed by the additional elements are not truly drawn to a specific technology, technical process or any other indications of patent eligibility under step 2A prong 2. Rather the operations recited and performed by the “one or more processors” and/or “transceivers” is to perform risk mitigation processes and a transaction. Simply reciting the use of a computer elements to perform a transaction process does not to meet the Alice/May 2A. The recited high-level functions with an expected outcomes to implement a transaction process amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure on what the technical problem was and how the claimed limitations provide a technical solution to a technical problem rather than a solution to a problem found in the abstract idea. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the system at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1-2 are directed toward analyzing data in response to received transaction message which is a business process. The combination of limitations 1-2 and 3 are directed generating a scaled score representing likelihood of a transaction settlement -risk mitigation. The combination of limitations 1-3 and 4-5 is directed toward analyzing account holder transaction activity by applying system processors/transceivers in order to generate a score representing probability of payments and to estimate future account balances, determine cost and output the results. The combination of limitations 1-5 is not directed toward any particular technical process or the technology itself but instead to apply technology to perform the analysis of payment risk of a transaction. The combination of limitations 1-5 and 6-7 are directed toward applying the results of limitations 1-5 for use in requesting and initiating a transaction. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter as a whole is directed toward generating a scaled score representing risk and fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of receiving data, identifying data and generating a likelihood score which is a process directed toward a business practice. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “receiving”, “identifying”, “generating” and/or “predicting” operations are performed. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how systems carry out one of their basic functions. The claimed system merely provides a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea identified above and fails to provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to generate a score representing risk and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, a particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising one or more processors and/or transceivers programmed to perform the operations of receive, identify and generate scaled score and predict estimated account future balances. Claim 1 does not describe these programmed one or more processors and/or receivers of the system, in any further technical detail that would distinguish them from their generic counterparts. Each is functionally described as either "receive”, “identify”, “generate…score", “predict estimated future balance”, “determine cost”, “receive request” and “initiate transaction” is described in functional terms; that is, it is configured to perform information-processing steps to receive, identify, generate and predict. Putting it together, these steps simply call for using a generic system one or more processors and/or transceivers to function as one of ordinary skill in the art would expect such a system to function, that is, to perform, inter alia, recited functions. Claim 1 "consist[s] solely of result-orientated, functional language and omit[ s] any specific requirements as to how these steps of information manipulation are performed." Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., 110 F.4th 1280, 1292-93 (Fed. Cir. 2024). With respect to the receive, identify and generate scaled score and predict estimated further balance functions, the Specification attributes no special technical meaning to any of these operations, individually or in the combination, as claimed. These are common processing functions that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known generic servers were capable of performing and would have associated with such generic devices. Cf OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a system one or more processors and/or transceivers to receive, identify and generate score/predict future estimated balance ----are some of the most basic functions of a computer. Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or requiring no more than a generic compute to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. The claim limitations do not recite that any of the “system” perform more than a high level generic function. None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “receive”, “identify” and “generate …score” ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose one or more processors and/or transceivers without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
The specification discloses:
[0007] A first aspect of the invention concerns a system for payment routing according to a likelihood of settlement. The system includes one or more processors and/or transceivers individually or collectively programmed to: receive a payment transaction message relating to a putative payment transaction, the payment transaction message containing putative payment transaction data identifying an account of an accountholder and a transaction amount corresponding to the putative payment transaction; input at least some of the putative transaction data to a scaled score algorithm to generate a scaled score representing the likelihood of settlement of the putative payment transaction on a date, the scaled score algorithm including a plurality of components each respectively outputting a value and the scaled score being based on the plurality of values; generate metadata regarding the scaled score by applying a plurality of contribution rules to the values, the metadata comprising significance indicators for the components with respect to the generation of the scaled score; and output the scaled score and the metadata regarding the scaled score in response to the payment transaction message.
[0028] Turning briefly to Figure 2, generally the computing device 102 may comprise tablet computers, laptop computers, desktop computers, workstation computers, smart phones, smart watches, and the like. Also, or in addition, the computing device 102 may include a plurality of copiers, printers, routers, switches, servers, and any other device that can connect to an internal or external network, and/or communication network. For example, the computing device 102 may also include a plurality of proxy servers, web servers, communications servers, routers, load balancers, and/or firewall servers, as are commonly known. Each computing device 102 may respectively include a processing element 200 and a memory element 204. Each computing device 102 may also respectively include circuitry capable of wired and/or wireless communication with the card issuer 104, merchant 106, account data storage device 108, databases 110, and/or financial institution 112, including, for example, transceiver element 202. Further, the computing device 102 may include software configured with instructions for performing and/or enabling performance of at least some of the steps set forth herein. In an embodiment, the software comprises programs stored on computer-readable media of memory elements 204.
[0035] The transceiver element 202 generally allows communication with the card issuer 104, merchant 106, account data storage device 108, and financial institution(s) 112. The transceiver element 202 may include signal or data transmitting and receiving circuits, such as antennas, amplifiers, filters, mixers, oscillators, digital signal processors (DSPs), and the like. The transceiver element 202 may establish communication via the communication links 114 wirelessly by utilizing radio frequency (RF) signals and/or data that comply with communication standards such as cellular 2G, 3G, 4G or 5G, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standard such as WiFi, IEEE 802.16 standard such as WiMAX, Bluetooth™, or combinations thereof. In addition, the transceiver element 202 may utilize communication standards via the communication links 114 such as ANT, ANT+, Bluetooth™ low energy (BLE), the industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) band at 2.4 gigahertz (GHz), or the like. Alternatively, or in addition, the transceiver element 202 may establish communication through connectors or couplers that receive metal conductor wires or cables, like Cat 6 or coax cable, which are compatible with networking technologies such as ethernet. In certain embodiments, the transceiver element 202 may also couple with optical fiber cables. The transceiver element 202 may respectively be in communication with the processing element 200 and/or the memory element 204.
[0037] The processing element 200 may include electronic hardware components such as processors. The processing element 200 may include digital processing unit(s). The processing element 200 may include microprocessors (single-core and multi-core), microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), analog and/or digital application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), or the like, or combinations thereof. The processing element 200 may generally execute, process, or run instructions, code, code segments, software, firmware, programs, applications, apps, processes, services, daemons, or the like. For instance, the processing element 200 may execute software applications/programs stored on the memory element 204 in connection with performing all or some of the steps described herein. The processing element 200 may also include hardware components such as finite-state machines, sequential and combinational logic, and other electronic circuits that can perform the functions necessary for the operation of the current invention. The processing element 200 may be in communication with the other electronic components through serial or parallel links that include universal busses, address busses, data busses, control lines, and the like.
[0038] Through hardware, software, firmware, or various combinations thereof, the processing element 200 may - alone or in combination with other processing elements - be configured to perform the operations of embodiments of the present invention. Specific embodiments of the technology will now be described in connection with the attached drawing figures. The embodiments are intended to describe aspects of the invention in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art to practice the invention. Other embodiments can be utilized, and changes can be made without departing from the scope of the present invention. The system may include additional, less, or alternate functionality and/or device(s), including those discussed elsewhere herein.
FIG. 1-2:
PNG
media_image1.png
386
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
355
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-4 and 6-8 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward generating a scaled score for each of the plurality of accounts held with plurality of financial institutions- a business practice and risk mitigation process. Dependent claim 3 is directed toward a first scaled score for a first account and a second scaled score for a second account -- a business practice and risk mitigation process. Dependent claim 4 is directed toward initiating payment transaction via selected one or first or second account based on score comparison using the one or more processors and/or receivers - - a business practice and risk mitigation process. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward score representing likelihood of settlement for ACH transaction through first account and second score represents likelihood settlement for debit card transaction through second account- - a business practice and risk mitigation process. Dependent claim(s) 7 and 8 are directed toward receive input from account holder- insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward determining cost to execute transaction for each of accounts on corresponding date- business practice.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claims 11-14 and 16-18:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 11 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The steps of Method claim 11 corresponds to operations of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward mental processes, mathematical concepts and methods of organizing human activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The steps of Method claim 11 corresponds to operations of system claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include the steps performed via one or more transceivers and/or processors–is purely functional and generic. The method performed via “one or more transceivers and or processor” is being performed at a high level of generality without any details as to technical implementation and thus amounts to no more than mere automation of an abstract idea. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the method claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
Because Method claim 11 steps corresponds to system functions/operations of claim 1, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception (see rejection of claim 1 above). Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 12-14 and 16-18 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 11. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward generating a scaled score for each of the plurality of accounts held with plurality of financial institutions- a business practice and risk mitigation process. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward a first scaled score for a first account and a second scaled score for a second account -- a business practice and risk mitigation process. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward selecting one of first or second account based on score comparison using the one or more processors and/or receivers - - a business practice and risk mitigation process. Dependent claim 16 is directed toward score representing likelihood of settlement for ACH transaction through first account and second score represents likelihood settlement for debit card transaction through second account- - a business practice and risk mitigation process. Dependent claim(s) 17 and 18 are directed toward receive input from account holder- insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward determining cost to execute transaction for each of accounts on corresponding date- business practice.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 11. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 12-14 and 16-18 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,521,211 B2 by Allbright et al. (Allbright) in view of US Patent No. 11,823201 B2 by Wintle et al. (Wintle) and further in view of US Pub No. 2018/0225648 A1 by Robinson et al. (Robinson)
In reference to Claim 1:
Albright teaches:
(Currently Amended) A system for payment routing according to a likelihood of settlement, the system comprising one or more processors and/or transceivers individually or collectively programmed to:
receive a payment transaction message relating to a putative payment transaction of an accountholder, the payment transaction message containing putative payment transaction data including a transaction amount corresponding to the putative payment transaction ((Allbright) in at least Col 8 lines 41-62, Col 12 lines 34-42, Col 20 lines 37-52, Col 21 lines 14-17);
identify a plurality of accounts corresponding to the accountholder based on the payment transaction message, the plurality of accounts being held with a plurality of financial institutions ((Allbright) in at least col 4 lines 56-Col 5 lines 1-12, lines 32-59, lines 56-Col 6 lines 1-55, Col 7 lines 55-Col 8 lines 1-30); and
responsive to receipt of said putative transaction data, generate a scaled score representing the likelihood of settlement of the putative payment transaction on a date for each of the plurality of accounts held with the plurality of financial institutions. ((Allbright) in at least Abstract; Col 1 lines 40-Col 2 lines 1-48, Col 3 lines 64-Col 4 lines 1-21, Col 6 lines 20-55, Col 7 lines 53-40, Col 8 lines 1-col 16 lines 20-Col 17 lines 1-25), …
output the … the plurality of scaled scores respectively corresponding to the plurality of accounts and dates to a merchant associated with the putative payment transaction ((Albright) in at least FIG. 2; Col 5 lines 13-65, Col 14 lines 33-45, Col 16 lines 37-54, Col 17 lines 37-47, Col 18 lines 4-34);
receive a transaction request, after outputting the … the plurality of scaled scores, from the merchant, the transaction request requesting the payment transaction …. ((Albright) in at least Col 15 lines 8-33, Col 16 lines 37-54); and
Albright does not explicitly teach:
the generation of each of the scaled scores including predicting an estimated future available balance in the corresponding account of the plurality of accounts on the date
determine a cost to execute the putative payment transaction for each of the plurality of accounts on the corresponding date;
output the … the plurality of scaled scores respectively corresponding to the plurality of accounts and dates to a merchant associated with the putative payment transaction;
receive a transaction request, after outputting the plurality of costs and … from the merchant, the transaction request requesting the payment transaction via a selected one of the plurality of accounts; and
initiate a payment transaction corresponding to the putative payment transaction via the selected one of the plurality of accounts
Wintle teaches:
the generation of each of the scaled scores including predicting an estimated future available balance in the corresponding account of the plurality of accounts on the date ((Wintle) in at least Col 4 lines 5-14, Col 11 lines 22-28, Col 13 lines 30-52, Col 14 lines 57-Col 15 lines 1-6)
Both Allbright and Wintle teach analyzing transaction data in order to detect fraud and teach generating a score representing the likelihood of settlement/decline of a possible fraudulent transaction or other payment indications. Wintle teaches the motivation of analyzing recurring transaction using ML models in order to calculate a projected a balance of a due date in order to provide advice to transfer additional funds if necessary and provide account alerts which decrease the number of declined recurring transaction and increases the detection of fraudulent recurring payment transactions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis of transaction data scored for indications of likelihood of declining of Allbright to include estimating a projected balance of an account as of a due date as taught by Wintle since Wintle teaches the motivation of analyzing recurring transaction using ML models in order to calculate a projected a balance of a due data in order to provide advice to transfer additional funds if necessary and provide account alerts which decrease the number of declined recurring transaction and increases the detection of fraudulent recurring payment transactions
Robinson teaches:
determine a cost to execute the putative payment transaction for each of the plurality of accounts on the corresponding date ((Robinson) in at least FIG. 7; para 0008, para 0052, para 0058, para 0063 wherein the prior art teaches calculating payment times and corresponding transaction fees, para 0074);
output the plurality of costs … respectively corresponding to the plurality of accounts and dates to a …[parties] associated with the putative payment transaction ((Robinson) in at least para 0031 wherein the prior art teaches the terms “payor”, “payee”, used to refer to parties of transaction, terms “user”, “consumer” or “merchant” does not limit the scope of the invention”, para 0064 wherein the prior art teaches transferring calculated payment times including purchase date and any corresponding fees, para 0064 wherein the prior art teaches transferring payment times and any corresponding transaction fees, para 0075, para 0085, para 0097-0099);
receive a transaction request, after outputting the plurality of costs and the plurality of scaled scores, from the merchant, the transaction request requesting the payment transaction via a selected one of the plurality of accounts ((Robinson) in at least para 0034 wherein the prior art teaches information applied used to scoring approved transaction for consumer choice, para 0036 wherein the prior art teaches consumer and/or merchant notified of transaction and chooses payment time to process payment; para 0040 wherein the prior art teaches visual display provide information to user and possibly the merchant; para 0047 wherein the prior art teaches parameters in data displayed include non-traditional risk scores not limited to category and other parameters may be useful, para 0058 wherein the prior art teaches based on selected time schedule payment processing para 0065-0066, para 0078-0080) ; and
initiate a payment transaction corresponding to the putative payment transaction via the selected one of the plurality of accounts ((Robinson) in at least para 0049- 0052, para 0055, para 0058, para 0067)
With respect to the limitation “output the plurality of costs and the plurality of scaled scores respectively corresponding to the plurality of accounts and dates to a merchant…”, although the embodiment of the prior art teaches outputting to cost to the consumer, the prior does teach para 0036 wherein the prior art teaches consumer and/or merchant notified of transaction and chooses payment time to process payment and teaches the terms “consumer” or “merchant” does not limit the scope of the invention”. When considered in combination with Albright which explicitly teaches communicating to merchants scoring information related to transaction risk and other transaction request information, and the prior art Robinson suggestion that transaction information outputted can be presented to both the merchant and/or consumers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to arrive at the claimed outputting to the merchant the cost information
Both Allbright and Robinson teach analyzing transaction data in order to score transactions to approve where the analysis includes different transaction parameters for for use in transactions. Robinson teaches the motivation of including in the parameters and calculations and outputting the results for selecting accounts for transaction by associating transaction fees with payment dates where later dates can have higher transaction fees in order to reduce cost for transactions to the participants of the transaction for use in initiating transactions. .
In reference to Claim 11:
The combination of Albright, Wintle and Robinson discloses the limitations of independent claim 11.
The steps of method claim 11 correspond to the operations of system claim 1.
Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 7-8 of claim 1 above; Claim(s) 12 and 17-18 of claim 11 above is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,521,211 B2 by Allbright et al. (Allbright) in view of US Patent No. 11,823201 B2 by Wintle et al. (Wintle), US Pub No. 2018/0225648 A1 by Robinson et al. (Robinson) and further in view of WO 2020/102395 A1 by Juban et al. (Juban)
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of Allbright, Robinson and Wintle discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Allbright further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein generation of the scaled score for each of the plurality of accounts held with the plurality of financial institutions includes processing data from at least one of the merchant, a card issuer, the corresponding one of the plurality of financial institutions, an account data storage device and a database. ((Allbright) in at least Col 10 lines 34-42, col 12 lines 34-63 )
Juban teaches and provides supporting evidence:
wherein generation of the scaled score for each of the plurality of accounts held with the plurality of financial institutions includes processing data from at least one of the merchant, a card issuer, the corresponding one of the plurality of financial institutions, an account data storage device and a database((Juban) in at least abstract; FIG. 14D; FIG. 141; FIG. 15; para 0008-0009, para 0022, para 0024, para 0104-0105, para 0115, para 0133)
According to KSR, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or another based on design incentives and other market forces. The scope and content of the prior art Juban, although in a different field of endeavor/embodiment of fraudulent activity and transactions, included a similar or analogous process of scaled scoring transaction data in order to measure transaction behavior. The prior art provided design incentives or market forces which included analyzing different transaction processes from different accounts associated with particular transaction criteria which would have prompted adaptation of the known method. The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art Albright and Juban were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art such as analysis of likely fraudulent/illegal activity which would possibly result in a transaction funding issue. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation which encompasses detailed analysis of each account activity of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art
Both Albright and Juban are directed toward analyzing transaction data associated with different entities in order to detect fraudulent/illegal activity. Juban teaches the motivation of scoring account held at different institutions from a plurality of transaction entities or sources in order to detect illegal activity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis of transaction data scored for indications of likelihood of illegal/fraudulent activities of Allbright to include the details of analyzing transaction data related to different entities as taught by Juban since Juban teaches the motivation of scoring account held at different institutions from a plurality of transaction entities or sources in order to detect illegal activity.
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of Albright, Robinson and Wintle discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Albright further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7
(Original) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the one or more processors and/or transceivers are further programmed to
Allbright does not explicitly teach:
individually or collectively receive, before receipt of the payment transaction message, input from the accountholder identifying the plurality of accounts and the corresponding plurality of financial institutions
Juban teaches:
individually or collectively receive, before receipt of the payment transaction message, input from the accountholder identifying the plurality of accounts and the corresponding plurality of financial institutions. ((Juban) in at least FIG. 14C-D, 14I, FIG. 15, FIG. 18)
Both Allbright and Juban are directed toward collecting and analyzing transaction data in order to detect fraudulent activity. Juban teaches the motivation of collecting data before receive to transaction data in order to train and design an analytics model to detect specific fraudulent activity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for collecting data for detection of fraudulent activity and likelihood of a transaction activity of Allbright to include collecting data for analysis before receipt of transaction data as taught by Juban since Juban teaches the motivation of collecting data before receive to transaction data in order to train and design an analytics model to detect specific fraudulent activity.
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of Albright, Robinson, Wintle and Juban discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7. Albright further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8
(Original) The system of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above),
Allbright does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more processors and/or transceivers are further programmed to individually or collectively receive, before receipt of the payment transaction message, input from the accountholder specifying a transaction type of the putative payment transaction in association with the plurality of accounts
Juban teaches:
wherein the one or more processors and/or transceivers are further programmed to individually or collectively receive, before receipt of the payment transaction message, input from the accountholder specifying a transaction type of the putative payment transaction in association with the plurality of accounts. ((Juban) in at least FIG. 14C-D, 14I, FIG. 15, FIG. 18)
Both Allbright and Juban are directed toward collecting and analyzing transaction data in order to detect fraudulent activity. Juban teaches the motivation of collecting data before receive to transaction data in order to train and design an analytics model to detect specific fraudulent activity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for collecting data for detection of fraudulent activity and likelihood of a transaction activity of Allbright to include collecting data for analysis before receipt of transaction data as taught by Juban since Juban teaches the motivation of collecting data before receive to transaction data in order to train and design an analytics model to detect specific fraudulent activity.
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of Albright, Robinson and Wintle discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. Albright further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12
The steps of method claim 12 correspond to the operations of system claim 2.
Therefore, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 2.
In reference to Claim 17:
The combination of Albright, Robinson and Wintle discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. Albright further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17
The steps of method claim 17 correspond to the operations of system claim 7.
Therefore, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 7.
In reference to Claim 18:
The combination of Allbright, Robinson, Wintle and Juban discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17. Albright further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18
The steps of method claim 18 correspond to the operations of system claim 8.
Therefore, claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 8.
Claim(s) 3 and Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,521,211 B2 by Allbright et al. (Allbright) in view of US Patent No. 11,823,201 B2 by Wintle et al. (Wintle) US Pub No. 2018/0225648 A1 by Robinson et al. (Robinson) in view of WO 2020/102395 A1 by Juban et al. (Juban) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 10,504,174 B2 by Loganathan et al. (Log)
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Albright, Robinson, Wintle and Juban discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2. Allbright further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Original) The system of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above),
Albright suggest but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of scaled scores includes a first scaled score for a first account of the plurality of accounts held with a first financial institution of the plurality of financial institutions and a second scaled score for a second account of the plurality of accounts held with a second financial institution of the plurality of financial institutions
Juban teaches:
wherein the plurality of scaled scores includes a first scaled score for a first account of the plurality of accounts held with a first financial institution of the plurality of financial institutions and a second scaled score for a second account of the plurality of accounts held with a second financial institution of the plurality of financial institutions. ((Juban) in at least FIG. 14D; FIG. 14I; FIG. 15; para 0008-0009, para 0022, para 0024, para 0086 wherein the prior art teaches displaying information using filtering capabilities in order to view prioritized list of all account to view prioritized cases, para 0094, para 0104-0105, para 0116)
Both Albright and Juban are directed toward analyzing and scoring accounts in order to detect fraudulent activity. Juban teaches the motivation of scoring a first and second account from different institutions in order to prioritize all accounts for analysis and review. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for scoring fraudulent activity and likelihood of a transaction activity of Allbright to include a first score generated for a first institution and second score for second institution of Juban since Juban teaches the motivation of scoring a first and second account from different institutions in order to prioritize all accounts for analysis and review
Log teaches:
wherein the plurality of scaled scores includes a first scaled score for a first account of the plurality of accounts held with a first financial institution of the plurality of financial institutions and a second scaled score for a second account of the plurality of accounts held with a second financial institution of the plurality of financial institutions.((Log) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 6; Col 11 lines 39- Col 12, Col 13 lines 35-48, Col 15 lines 4-Col 17 lines 1-9)
Although Log does not recite “first…score for a first account…held with a first financial institution” …” second … score for a second account of the plurality of accounts held with a second financial institution”, the prior art illustrates in at least FIG. 1 a first and second financial institution and illustrates in FIG. 6 a risk scoring table of at least a first and second account. According to KSR, common sense rationale, it is obvious to try to choose from a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success when the prior art provides teaching of a recognized need which may include a design need or market pressure to solve the problem. The prior art Log teaches a market pressure to score illicit accounts held in different financial institutions which list at least a first and second account held by at least a first and second institution. There is a finite number of identified potential solutions as to how many accounts should be scored in however many different financial institutions where the accounts are performing illicit transactions. Accordingly, based on common sense and the teaching of Log, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Both Allbright and Log teach analyzing and scoring account behavior in order to identify level of likelihood of fraudulent transactions within accounts across a plurality of financial entities. The prior art Log teaches the motivation of scoring the each of the accounts associated with their specific financial institutions in order to determine whether there is a need to execute a subpoena for each of the accounts of associated financial institutions by the government agency, instead of account holders in order to circumvent attempts of concealing the account holders. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scoring of illicit activity of Allbright to include the scoring of the account holder to be the scoring of each of the plurality of accounts (first and second) as taught by Log since Log teaches the motivation of scoring the each of the accounts associated with their specific financial institutions in order to determine whether there is a need to execute a subpoena for each of the accounts of associated financial institutions by the government agency, instead of account holders in order to circumvent attempts of concealing the account holders.
In reference to Claim 13:
The combination of Allbright, Robinson, Wintle and Juban discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12. Albright further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13
The steps of method claim 13 correspond to the operations of system claim 3.
Therefore, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 and Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,521,211 B2 by Allbright et al. (Allbright) in view of US Patent No. 11,823,201 B2 by Wintle et al. (Wintle), in view of US Pub No. 2018/0225648 A1 by Robinson et al. (Robinson) in view of WO 2020/102395 A1 by Juban et al. (Juban); in view of US Patent No. 10,504,174 B2 by Loganathan et al. (Log) as applied to claim(s) 4-5 and Claim(s) 14-15 above respectively, and further in view of US Pub No. 2016/0335641 A1 by White et al (White)
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of Albright, Robinson, Juban, Wintle and Log discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3. Albright further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above),
Albright does not explicitly teach:
wherein the selected one of the plurality of accounts is one of the first and the second accounts and is selected based in part on comparison of the first and the second scaled scores
White teaches:
wherein the selected one of the plurality of accounts is one of the first and the second accounts and is selected based in part on comparison of the first and the second scaled scores.((White) in at least Abstract; para 0037-0038, para 0040, para 0042-0046, para 0052).
The prior art Allbright teaches scoring the velocity of declines within a specific merchant group, geographic region etc.… in order to detect fraudulent transactions/accounts and that the fraud scores can be updated and shown to increase or change over time. The prior art White provides market behavior and design incentives of when it is determined that the score indicating illicit behavior is within a specific threshold that accounts for use in the transaction may be selected based on the account risk threshold scoring rules and then allowed to proceed with the transaction. Accordingly the prior art Albright and White provide design incentives/market forces that would have prompted adaptation of the teaching of Albright. This is because the prior art references provide evidence that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art references where encompassed in known variations and principles in the art. Accordingly, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art
In reference to Claim 14:
The combination of Albright, Robinson, Wintle and Juban discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13. Albright further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14
The steps of method claim 14 correspond to the operations of system claim 4.
Therefore, claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 4.
Claim(s) 6 and Claim(16) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,521,211 B2 by Allbright et al. (Allbright) in view of US Patent No. 11,823,201 B2 by Wintle et al. (Wintle), in view of US Pub No. 2018/0225648 A1 by Robinson et al. (Robinson)in view of WO 2020/102395 A1 by Juban et al. (Juban) in view of US Patent No. 10,504,174 B2 by Loganathan et al. (Log) in view of US Pub No. 2016/0335641 A1 by White et al (White) as applied to claim 4 and 14 respectively above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2012/0317008 A by Subramanian et al (Subra)
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination of Albright, Robinson, Wintle, Juban, Log and White discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4. Albright further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6.
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above),
Albright does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first scaled score represents the likelihood of settlement for an automated clearing house (ACH) transaction through the first account, and the second scaled score represents the likelihood of settlement for a debit card transaction through the second account.
Subra teaches:
wherein the first scaled score represents the likelihood of settlement for an automated clearing house (ACH) transaction through the first account, and the second scaled score represents the likelihood of settlement for a debit card transaction through the second account. ((Subra) in at least FIG. 2-3, FIG. 5; para 0028-0030, para 0038)
Both Albright and Subra are directed analyzing transaction data and scoring suspicious transaction activity. Subra teaches the motivation of predicting transaction type such as credit card transaction, debit transaction or check transaction as a mechanism for determining suspicious activity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction data scored for indications of suspicious behavior of Albright to include transaction types as taught by Subra since Subra teaches the motivation of predicting transaction type such as credit card transaction, debit transaction or check transaction as a mechanism for determining suspicious activity.
In reference to Claim 16:
The combination of Albright, Wintle and Juban discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14. Albright further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 16
The steps of method claim 16 correspond to the operations of system claim 6.
Therefore, claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CA 3133488 A1 by Kolchin; WO 0169492 by Johnson
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights