DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 06/26/2026 has been entered.
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 RCE filed on 06/26/2026
Claims 10, 12, and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-17, and 19-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
In accordance with MPEP 706.07(b), this action is First Action FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 with respect to the 101 SME rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to applicant’s arguments that the claims cannot be performed mentally, as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III), 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). With respect to the argument that generating a verification score that requires generating 37 unique verification scores based on different combinations of data, Examiner maintains his position that this can be done by pen and paper. Even arguendo that the process cannot practically be performed mentally, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea when analyzed under subject matter eligibility test, and MPEP 2106.05(g) provides an example where the additional elements adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, similar to the instant application with respect to the how the data is analyzed, with the example of pre-solution activity being the step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. See also Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);.
Examiner also maintains the position that the claims are merely invoking the computer as tool for performing the abstract process. As the Courts having shown Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);, and Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality," BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); to be insufficient to show an improvement to the computer. As such, these decisions show it’s well within a computer’s capabilities to receive data elements, populate data elements into a multi-layer identity verification module, generate a verification score for each combination of data elements in each layer, and apply at least one transaction rule to at least one combination of the data elements. As per 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
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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
Prosecution Insights