DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in reply to the Request for Reconsideration dated 04/06/2026.
2. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-27 are pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 25-27 are newly added.
4. Claims 1, 8-9, 17 and 24 have been amended.
5. Claims 3-4, 7, 12-13, 16 and 20 have been cancelled.
6. The examiner for this application has changed. Please indicate Examiner Ambreen A. Alladin as the examiner of record in all future correspondences.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
7. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment filed April 6, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
As in Claim 1:
train one or more machine learning models by providing the one or more machine learning models with data representing successful and unsuccessful authentication methods based on geolocations and login request, wherein training the one or more machine learning models comprises adjusting model parameters to select an appropriate step-up authentication method from among a set of available step-up authentication methods
As in Claim 8:
train one or more machine learning models using actions associated with the account as input data and a history of the account, wherein training the one or more machine learning models comprises adjusting model parameters to analyze the actions associated with the account and assign different risk levels to each action
As in Claim 17:
training one or more machine learning models by providing one or more machine learning models with data representing successful and unsuccessful authentication methods based on geolocations and funds transfer requests, wherein training the one more machine learning models comprises adjusting model parameters;
excluding, from the one or more first step up authentication methods, step-up authentication methods having a reliability level below a predetermined threshold
Applicant’s specification indicates that the system may utilize one or more machine learning trained to select an appropriate authentication method, however this appears to be a machine learning model that was previously trained on historical data, not being trained by the system at the time of the login request as it appears Applicant is attempting to claim. (See Applicant Spec para 32) The recitation of active training in the independent claims is an over-read of the instant specification.
Further, in Claim 17, there is no recitation of a reliability level below a predetermined threshold.
Dependent claims 2, 5-6, 9-11, 14-15, 18-19 and 21-27 are further rejected based on a rejected base claim.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
#. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 14-15, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “appropriate step-up authentication method” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “appropriate step-up method” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “low risk”, “medium risk” and “high risk” in claim 8 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “low risk”, “medium risk” and “high risk” are not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be not reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Dependent claims 2, 5-6, 9-11, 14-15 and 25-26 are further rejected as based upon a rejected base claim.
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.
8. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 1 recites a system claim. Claim 8 recites a system claim. Claim 17 recites a method claim.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of fraud prevention. The idea is described by the following limitations:
receive a login request for an account associated with a user and a geolocation of the user;
determine whether the geolocation of the user device falls outside of one or more first known customer geographic regions or one or more first known user device locations by:
retrieving (i) one or more known user locations in which the user previously authenticated the user device, and (ii) a plurality of known customer geographic regions associated with the account; and
comparing the geolocation of the user device against the one or more known user device locations and the plurality of known customer geographic regions;
responsive to determining that the geolocation is not outside of the one or more first known customer geographic regions or the one or more first known user locations, authorize the user to access the account of the user based on the login request;
responsive to determining the geolocation of the user falls outside of the one or more first known customer geographic regions or the one or more first known user locations:
select and transmit, one or more step-up authentication methods based on determined accessibility constraints associated with the geolocation of the user and the login request;
receive first step-up authentication information using the one or more step-up authentication methods; and
responsive to determining that the first step-up authentication information matches known first step-up authentication information, authorize the user device to access the account of the user;
responsive to determining that the first step-up authentication information does not match known first step-up authentication information: eliminate, the one or more step-up authentication methods from the set of available step-up authentication methods;
select, one or more second step-up authentication methods from the set of available step-up authentication methods; and
transmit a request for second step-up authentication information to the user based on the one or more second step-up authentication methods.
Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of fraud prevention. The idea is described by the following limitations:
receive a login request for an account associated with a user and a geolocation of the user;
determine whether the geolocation of the user falls outside of a known customer geographic region or one or more first known user device locations in which the user previously authenticated the user;
determine whether a transaction associated with the account falls outside of the known customer geographic region or the one or more first known user locations;
categorize a plurality of actions associated with the account into a plurality of action risk levels comprising at least a low risk level, a medium risk level, and a high risk level based on a history of the account;
determine, based on the plurality of action risk levels, which of the plurality of actions require the one or more step-up authentication methods;
responsive to determining that the geolocation and the transaction are not outside of the known customer geographic region or the one or more first known user locations, authorize the user to access the account of the user based on the login request; and
responsive to determining (i) the geolocation of the user falls outside of the known customer geographic region or the one or more first known user locations, or (ii) the transaction falls outside of the known customer geographic region or the one or more first known user locations:
determine, whether one or more step-up authentication methods should be enforced at one or more selected times based on the login request and the geolocation of the user;
select, the one or more step- up authentication methods based on the geolocation of the user and the login request;
transmit a request for step-up authentication information to the user at the one or more selected times based on the one or more step-up authentication methods;
receive, via the user device, the step-up authentication information using the one or more step-up authentication methods; and
responsive to determining that the step-up authentication information matches known step-up authentication information, authorize the user to access the account of the user.
Claim 17 recites the abstract idea of preventing fraud. The idea is described by the following limitations:
receiving a login request for an account associated with a user and a geolocation of a user;
determining the geolocation of the user falls outside of a known customer geographic region;
determining, a security risk level of an action associated with the login request;
selecting and transmitting, one or more first step-up authentication methods from among one or more second step-up authentication methods, wherein selecting the one or more first step-up authentication methods comprises:
retrieving, activation history data associated with a near field communication enabled card and association history data associated with a telephone number of the user device;
determining, based on the activation history data and the association history data, a reliability level of each of the one or more second step-up authentication methods; and
excluding, from the one or more first step-up authentication methods, step- up authentication methods having a reliability level below a predetermined threshold,
to select the one or more first step-up authentication methods based on at least one of: (i) the geolocation of the user, (ii) a country associated with the account, (iii) the login request, or (iv) the security risk level of the action associated with the login request;
receiving step-up authentication information using the one or more first step-up authentication methods; and
responsive to determining that the step-up authentication information matches known step-up authentication information, authorizing the user to access the account of the user.
The abstract ideas describe certain methods of organizing human activity as the steps involve fundamental economic practices or principles (mitigating risk); commercial interactions (business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (following rules or instructions) as disclosed above. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 1 recites one or more processors, a memory in communication with the one or more processors, instructions, a user device, one or more machine learning models, and a database.
Claim 8 recites one or more processors, memory in communication with the one or more processors, instructions, a user device, one or more machine learning models.
Claim 17 recites one or more machine learning models, a user device, and a database.
In particular, the claims only recite one or more processors, a memory in communication with the one or more processors, instructions, a user device, one or more machine learning models, and a database which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 8 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) 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) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) 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."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory and electronically scanning or extracting dataall of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses at paragraphs 43-47 that the processors may be any of a variety of types of processors or processing devices.
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 1, 8 and 17 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 2, 5-6, 9-11, 14-15, 18-19 and 21-27 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the respective independent Claims 1, 8 and 17 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above.
Claim 21 further recites using an IP address of the user device. Claim 22 further recites receiving a GPS signal via the user device. No further additional hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 6, 2026 have been fully considered as further detailed below.
As to the 101 Rejection:
While Examiner appreciates Applicant’s argument as to the training the machine learning models, the specification appears to indicate that the models are already trained on historical data, not being trained within the process disclosed as further detailed in the 112(a) and 101 rejections above. (See Applicant Arguments dated 04/06/2026 pages 14-17) Based on the disclosure, the recitations are not persuasive and appear to be applying previously trained machine learning models, not recursively training the model and the 101 rejection is maintained.
As to the 103 Rejection:
There is no prior art rejection being applied at this time. (Id. at pages 17-20)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 September 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights