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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
The effective filing date of the present application is 11/13/2019.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration filed 11/11/2025 has been entered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of 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 – 20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, the phrase "activate a friction point in the form of a functionality that can be selectively altered inside the source code ..." is not positively recited and therefore not required by the claim. The Examiner notes that "can be" is not positively recited and therefore not required by the claim. (The Examiner adds that a positively recited requirement should read "…is selectively altered..."). Adding to indefiniteness is the further recitation of “…to provide difficulty for a user to interact with the online resource…”. This is a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result – i.e., what functionality is selectively altered, that will accomplish providing difficulty.
Claims 2 – 8, 10 – 16, and 18 – 20, based on their dependency to claims 1, 9, and 17, inherit this indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step One of eligibility analysis, the claims recite a system and a method; therefore, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims set forth a method for monitoring user data (based on the user’s interactions) during an online session and predicting possible fraud occurrences. This describes steps for mitigating risk, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice and considered within the certain method of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9, which is illustrative of claims 1 and 17, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method comprising: receiving user data from a device during an online session between the device and an online resource hosted by a host platform;
displaying a page of the online resource from among a plurality of pages of the online resource during the online session, wherein the online resource has friction points implemented within a user experience between a host platform and user device;
predicting, via a machine learning model, likelihoods of the user to commit different types of fraud when interacting with an online resource of the host platform based on the user data received from the device during the online session; and
activating a friction point in the form of a functionality that can be selectively altered inside source code of the online resource during the online session to provide difficulty for a user to interact with the online resource based on the predicted likelihoods of the user to commit different types of fraud.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1, 9, and 17, recite only the following additional elements:
A computing system comprising: a network interface;
a device;
an online resource hosted by a host platform;
a processor configured to display a page of the online resource from among a plurality of pages of the online resource during the online session;
wherein the online resource has friction points implemented within a user experience between a host platform and user device;
a machine learning model;
source code of the online resource;
non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions.
Certain elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). These are (a computing system comprising: a network interface; a device; an online resource hosted by a host platform; a processor; friction points; source code; instructions). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [5:20] and Figure 1, as filed. Further, the use of a machine learning model is recited but not specifically defined. Applicant’s disclosure recites using machine learning models and mentions these models are trained on historically negative behavior and user information. Thus, Applicant defines a machine learning model broadly as well, which one skilled in the art understands to be a computer program that has been trained on data. This additional element describes mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea on a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (a computing system comprising: a network interface; a device; an online resource hosted by a host platform; a processor; friction points; source code; instructions), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2 – 7,10 – 15, and 18 – 20, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract ideas found in claims 1, 9, and 17. Recitations to a likelihood score of the user to commit fraud, thresholds for restrictions, new user data, and friction points, (and activate or deactivate, or hide content), are further refinements of the methods used for monitoring user data during an online session and predicting possible fraud occurrences. Further recitations to the system employed is simply linking the claims to computer implementation and is not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application and/or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 8 and 16 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 9. The recitations to a call to an API is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and thus, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1 – 20 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Claims Distinguished Over Prior Art
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, the prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Certain prior art discloses user-browser interaction-based fraud detection, (O’Connell). Other art teaches machine learning for fraud detection, (Lim). However, the cited prior art of record fails to teach the recited combination of elements within claims 1, 9, and 17:
wherein the online resource has friction points implemented within a user experience between a host platform and user device;
predict, via a machine learning model, likelihoods of the user to commit different types of fraud when interacting with an online resource of the host platform based on the user data received from the device during the online session; and,
activate a friction point in the form of a functionality that can be selectively altered inside source code of the online resource during the online session to provide difficulty for a user to interact with the online resource based on the predicted likelihoods of the user to commit different types of fraud.
Accordingly, the current claim set, i.e., claims 1 – 20, is distinguished over prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive.
Applicant first discusses rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 8. Applicant argues that the pending claims provide a technical solution to proactively manage the online resource(s) during a session to avoid fraud based on data from a user device. See page 10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims reflect any disclosed improvement.
As noted above, the final claim element is not positively recited. Therefore, it is not definite that “[t]he dynamics of how severely the posting is restricted lie within the friction point”. See Remarks, page 13. The Examiner details earlier that a definite description of what functionality is selectively altered, would serve to delineate what steps or components serve to provide difficulty for a user to interact with the online resource…” as argued. Note that this claim limitation is a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Applicant concedes on page 11, that the “…claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement.”
The Examiner adds that alternatively recited claim limitations would serve to show the claim - as a whole - integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
Applicant next argues rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See page 13. In view of the amendments to the claims, and upon updated research, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive. A further discussion is included above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL document discusses fraud analysis and prevention in ecommerce.
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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights