DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 03/04/2026.
Claims 10, 12, and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-17, and 19-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 with respect to the 101 SME rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that independent Claim 1 provides a technical
improvement in methods for automated transaction control and verification for e-commerce platforms by implementing a multi-layer identity verification module and control server that generate and analyze combinations of k data elements in each layer k of the n layers. Unlike prior approaches that analyze verification scores of data elements (e.g., Credit Card (CC), IP Address (IP), Email Address (Email), Device ID, Phone Number (Phone), and Billing Address) on an individual basis, the claimed method dynamically analyzes verification scores for each combination of k data elements, thereby providing a more accurate, efficient, and robust analysis of the data elements. As a result, the claimed method is enabled to more accurately and efficiently direct the e-commerce merchant system to accept or reject the e-commerce transaction based on the dynamic analysis of the data elements.
In one example, assume that an e-commerce transaction includes the following data elements: CC, IP, Email, Device ID, Phone, and Billing. As discussed above, prior approaches analyze verification scores of data elements on an individual basis, and thus prior approaches analyze a verification score of each data element individually without considering the verification score of the other data elements. As a result, prior approaches would analyze the verification score of CC without considering the verification scores of IP, Email, Device ID, Phone, and Billing. Similarly, prior approaches would analyze the verification score of IP without considering the verification scores of CC, Email, Device ID, Phone, and Billing. Although prior approaches may consider each verification score of each data element individually, prior approaches fail to consider verification scores, and thus data elements, in view of one another. As a result, such prior approaches may provide inaccurate analyses and thus may provide inaccurate direction to accept or reject an e-commerce transaction based on the inaccurate analyses. Applicant respectfully submits that this is a technical problem, not a business problem. Although the solution is useful to businesses, the solution is technical in nature, and Applicant respectfully submits that very few patents exist that are not useful to some business. Furthermore, a claim is not ineligible merely because it addresses a "business problem."
Independent Claim 1, on the other hand, implements a multi-layer identity verification module and control server that generate and analyze combinations of k data elements in each layer k of the n layers. As a result, according to the present example, independent Claim 1 analyzes not only the verification scores of CC, IP, Email, Device ID, Phone, and Billing, individually, but also various combinations of these data elements. See, e.g., FIG. 6 of the Subject Application, copied below, which highlights various combinations of the data elements which are analyzed by the control server. It should be noted that FIG. 6 of the Subject Application includes 4 layers (e.g., tiers), rather than 6 layers, for illustrative purposes only…
As a result, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed method provides a more accurate, efficient, and robust analysis of the data elements and thus provides a more accurate direction to accept or reject an e-commerce transaction based on the analysis. Applicant respectfully submits that this is clearly a technical improvement designed to address a technical problem in existing methods for automated transaction control and verification for e-commerce platforms. As stated in the October 2019 update to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), and as provided at MPEP § 2106.05(a), evaluation under Step 2A: Prong Two is required "to ensure that the claim as a whole 'integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." The October 2019 update further states that "if the additional limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and thus imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No further analysis is required. The claim is eligible at Step 2A." (Emphasis added.) Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed method clearly provides an improvement to the technical field automated transaction control and verification for e- commerce platforms by providing a more accurate, efficient, and robust analysis of the data elements, and by more accurately and efficiently directing the e-commerce merchant system to accept or reject the e-commerce transaction based on the analysis of the data elements.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that independent Claim 1 is patent eligible. Applicant respectfully submits that independent Claims 15 and 21 are patent eligible for similar reasons. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections to Claims 1, 15, and 21, and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections to Claims 2-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 at least in part based on their dependency from one of independent Claims 1, 15, or 21.
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, the Examiner fails to see how the claims amounts to a technical improvement/address a technical problem. The Examiner maintains the position that the claims are not directed towards an improvement to technology, but rather are using generic computer components as tools for analyzing the data with respect to a transaction in a way that 1) can be performed mentally, and 2) is well within the capabilities of a general purpose computer, as shown by several decisions in the MPEP (Classen, Electric Power Group, Bancorp Services as examples) for performing the commercial and legal interactions of analyzing the data related to a transaction and accepting or rejecting the transaction based on the analysis, and there for not a technical improvement.
With respect to the applicant’s assertion that the claims to provides a more accurate, efficient, and robust analysis of the data elements and thus provides a more accurate direction to accept or reject an e-commerce transaction based on the analysis, the Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Additionally, several Court decisions in MPEP 2106 show analyzing and comparing data is well-within a computer’s capabilities (see for example: a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011), considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018);, A computer readable medium containing program instructions for detecting fraud – CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d at 1692 n.1;), Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) as is here with the claims analyzing different combinations of data to determine a verification score for processing the transaction.
Further, as MPEP 2106.05(f), use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);
For the reasons above, the 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
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 1-9, 11, 13-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) - The claims pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards a system, and methods.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?)
Claim 1 recites an idea, in part, by:
receiving data elements of an e-commerce transaction, wherein each data element of the data elements is of a unique data element-type of a plurality of data element- types;
inputting the data elements in a multi-layer identity verification module comprising n layers, wherein n corresponds to a number of the data elements, wherein each layer k of the n layers includes combinations of k data elements, wherein k is an integer between 1 and n, and wherein a number of combinations in each layer k is equal to n! / (k! (n ···· k) !);
generating, by the multi-layer identity verification module, based on the data elements, a verification score for each combination in each layer;
receiving at least one transaction rule to be applied to the e-commerce transaction, the at least one transaction rule comprising a threshold verification score for at least one combination of the data elements;
determining whether the generated verification score for the at least one combination of the data elements exceeds the threshold verification score;
directing, by the control server, an e-commerce merchant to accept the e-commerce transaction based on the determination that the generated verification score does not exceed the threshold verification score; and
directing, by the control server, an e-commerce merchant to reject the e-commerce transaction based on the determination that the generated verification score exceeds the threshold verification score.
Claim 15 recites an idea, in part, by:
receive a plurality of e-commerce transaction data, plurality of e-commerce transaction data corresponding to an e-commerce transaction;
propagate a plurality of identity variables from the plurality of e-commerce transactions , wherein each identity variable of the plurality of identity variables corresponds to a combination of the plurality of e-commerce transaction data;
for each identity variable of the plurality of identity variables, generate a plurality of temporal identity assessment scores limited to a period of time based on at least one of: a number of transaction statuses, types of transaction statuses, time lapsed since transaction statuses, or combinations thereof;
aggregate the plurality of temporal identity assessment scores to produce a raw risk assessment of a plurality of raw risk assessments, each raw risk assessment of the plurality of raw risk assessments corresponding to an identity variable of the plurality of identity variables;
extract at least one verification score from the plurality of raw risk assessments;
compare the at least one verification score to at least one verification score threshold of a transaction rule applied to the e-commerce transaction determine whether the at least one verification score exceeds the threshold verification score;
direct at least one of the e-commerce merchant or third party data source to accept the e-commerce transaction based on the determination that the at least one verification score does not exceed the threshold verification score; and
direct at least one of the e-commerce merchant or third party data source to reject the e-commerce transaction based on the determination that the at least one verification score exceeds the threshold verification score.
Claim 21 recites an idea, in part, by:
receive a request for an e-commerce transaction from a user account;
transmit data elements of the e-commerce transaction;
input the data elements into a multi-layer identity verification module;
generate a verification score for each combination of the data elements using the multi-layer identity verification module;
receive at least one transaction rule to be applied to the e-commerce transaction, the at least one transaction rule comprising a threshold verification score for at least one combination of the data elements;
receive the generated verification score for the at least one combination of data elements;
determine whether the generated verification score for the at least one combination of data elements exceeds the threshold verification score;
accept the e-commerce transaction based on the determination that the generated verification score does not exceed the threshold verification score; and
reject the e-commerce transaction based on the determination that the generated verification score exceeds the threshold verification score.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting a control server, an e-commerce merchant system, an e-commerce transaction control and verification system, a data warehouse, and a transaction server nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than fundamental economic principles or practices for analyzing combinations of data related to the transaction to generate and use a verification score used for processing a transaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the generic additional elements of a control server, an e-commerce merchant system, an e-commerce transaction control and verification system, a data warehouse, and a transaction server. The control server, e-commerce merchant system, e-commerce transaction control and verification system, data warehouse, and transaction server are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of networked computers. Examiner notes, the examiner interprets the multi-identity verification module in light of [0130] as software instructions for implementing the abstract idea of generating the verification score. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 20106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements of the control server, e-commerce merchant system, e-commerce transaction control and verification system, data warehouse, and transaction server to perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment does not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see 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), Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts", and also "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); are well-understood routine and conventional, similar to the instant application claims which recites and sending and receiving data over network, and storing and retrieving information from the data warehouse and analyzing data to generate and use a verification score used for processing a transaction. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. For instance, claims 2-9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22-23 are all steps that fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas but for the use of generic computer components to implement the idea and generally linking the use of the judicial exemption to a particular technical computing environment. Additionally, the displaying step of claim 13 and 22 falls to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements (see MPEP 2106.05(h) Electric Power Group court decision). The Dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694