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 08/05/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2025 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 101 analysis and the arguments that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea and recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The focus of the claims is on an abstract idea for analyzing the interactions of user in order to determine if a transaction should be accepted, see [00304-00310] for example, which describes analyzing customer’s past actions to behavioral patterns of the customer which are used estimate a risk associate the transaction that it might be fraudulent (as in [00327]). This falls within the commercial and legal interactions groupings of abstract ideas. While the claims do recite additional elements of the GUI and use of an AI algorithm, these elements are addressed in Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis, and are being as tools performing the abstract idea. Collecting and analyzing data about the users and determining risk are mitigating risk steps akin to mitigating settlement risk, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1979 (2014);, the use of the GUI and algorithm is merely part of the technical environment in which the idea is being limited to, and 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);.
Further, with respect to the GUI, the displaying and user interface step 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) and the GUI is being used as tool for collecting information about the user’s behaviors to detect if the user performing transactions similar to past behaviors. Additionally with respect to the flight matrix/list and elements which are used to track the user’s actions, this is akin to Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; and Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the Courts indicated the claims were not sufficient to show an improvement to technology, and the additional elements amounted to mere instructions to apply an exception, merely invoking computers or machinery as a tools to do. With respect to the AI algorithm, this is akin to using a generic machine learning technique in a particular environment, with no inventive concept, as opposed to disclosing “a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts,” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016), or “a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process,” Koninklijke, 942 F.3d at 1150, the use of AI in the instant application does not provide an inventive concept or significantly more. The only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment, which has been found by the Courts to be ineligible (see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025). Therefor the additional elements argued fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 1-20 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 three related methods.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?)
Claim 1 recites an idea, in part, by:
forming or updating a database comprising profiles of multiple users for assessing estimates of fraudulent risks, wherein a profile of the profiles comprises a log of actions in transactions associated with a user of the multiple users, together with indications of user behaviors based on the user actions;
receiving a flight search request from the user;
displaying a flight search result, with the flight search result comprising multiple flight itineraries resulted from the flight search request, in a flight matrix format or a flight itinerary format, wherein the flight matrix format is configured to show multiple flight elements configured in different flight categories in a first dimension and either different ranges or values of the flight categories in a second dimension, wherein the flight itinerary format is configured to show a list of the multiple flight itineraries, and wherein each of the flight matrix format and the flight itinerary format comprises a switching command configured for switching between the formats;
receiving a user input comprising at least an action of the user;
updating, wherein updating comprises at least one of:
arranging between the travel matrix format and the flight itinerary format based on a first action of the at least an action of the user with the first action comprising selecting the switching command,
firstly removing any flight itinerary of the multiple flight itineraries in the travel matrix format not meeting a first selected flight element in the flight matrix format based on a second action of the at least an action of the user, and
secondly removing any flight itinerary of the multiple flight itineraries in the travel matrix format meeting a second selected flight element in the flight matrix format based on a third action of the at least an action of the user;
generating an indication of a behavior of the user based on at least one of the first, second, or third actions;
updating the profile of the user in the database with the first and second actions and the user behavior indication;
receiving a request from the user for a transaction involving a flight itinerary booked by the user to a supplier providing the booked flight itinerary;
assessing a risk of the transaction being fraudulent using the database comprising the profile to provide an estimate of the fraudulent risk associated with the user, wherein assessing a risk of the transaction being fraudulent comprises authenticating an identity of the user, wherein the estimate of the fraudulent risk is performed by an artificial intelligent algorithm characterizing the transaction request to be whether or not a deviation from a pattern of the user behavior based on the at least one of the first, second, or third action and the behavior indications of the user characterized by the profile, and wherein a risk level higher than a threshold value causes the artificial intelligent algorithm to perform additional authentication steps;
accepting the transaction when the fraudulent risk estimate is below an acceptable value; and
sending the request to the supplier.
Claim 8 recites a similar abstract idea, in part, by:
forming or updating a database comprising profiles of multiple users for assessing estimates of fraudulent risks, wherein a profile of the profiles comprises a log of actions in transactions associated with a user of the multiple users, together with indications of user behaviors based on the user actions;
receiving a flight search request from the user;
displaying a flight search result, with the flight search result comprising multiple flight itineraries resulted from the flight search request, in a flight matrix format or a flight itinerary format, wherein the flight matrix format is configured to show multiple flight elements configured in different flight categories in a first dimension and either different ranges or values of the flight categories in a second dimension, wherein the flight itinerary format is configured to show a list of the multiple flight itineraries, and wherein each of the flight matrix format and the flight itinerary format comprises a switching command configured for switching between the formats;
receiving a user input comprising at least an action of the user c;
updating comprises at least one of:
arranging the graphical user interface between the travel matrix format and the flight itinerary format based on a first action of the at least an action of the user with the first action comprising selecting the switching command,
firstly removing any flight itinerary of the multiple flight itineraries in the travel matrix format not meeting a first selected flight element in the flight matrix format based on a second action of the at least an action of the user, and
secondly removing any flight itinerary of the multiple flight itineraries in the travel matrix format meeting a second selected flight element in the flight matrix format based on a third action of the at least an action of the user;
generating an indication of a behavior of the user based on at least one of the first, second, or third actions;
receiving a request from the user for a transaction involving a flight itinerary booked by the user to a supplier providing the booked flight itinerary, wherein the transaction comprises a first data field linked to the user, a second data field linked to the user, and a third data field comprising data of the transaction;
assessing a risk of the transaction being fraudulent using the database comprising the profile to provide an estimate of the fraudulent risk associated with the user, wherein the estimate of the fraudulent risk is performed by an artificial intelligent algorithm characterizing the transaction request to be whether or not a deviation from a pattern of the user behavior based on the at least one of the first, second, or third action and the behavior indications of the user characterized by the profile;
accepting the transaction when the fraudulent risk estimate is below an acceptable value;
randomly selecting a processing value for the data field for the transaction;
modifying the transaction to change the first and third fields of the transaction, wherein the first data field is changed to link to the platform, wherein the third data field is changed to the processing value, and wherein the second data field is remained unchanged, with the unchanged second data field configured to make the user an originated party; and
sending the modified transaction to the supplier.
Claim 15 recites a similar abstract idea, in part, by:
forming or updating a profile of a user for assessing an estimate of a fraudulent risk,
wherein the profile comprises a log of actions in transactions associated with the user, together with indications of user behaviors based on the actions,
wherein the actions are obtained during a process of the user selecting a flight itinerary of multiple flight itineraries, with the multiple flight itineraries resulted from a flight search result presented to the user based on a flight search request from the user,
wherein the indications of the user behaviors are generated based on the actions,
wherein the flight search result is displayed in a flight matrix format or a flight itinerary format,
wherein the flight matrix format is configured to show multiple flight elements configured in different flight categories in a first dimension and either different ranges or values of the flight categories in a second dimension,
wherein the flight itinerary format is configured to show a list of the multiple flight itineraries,
wherein the actions comprise a first switching action of the user, with the first action comprising a switching command in each of the flight matrix format and the flight itinerary format with the switching command configured for switching between the flight matrix format and the flight itinerary format,
wherein the actions comprise a second action of the user, with the second action comprising a selection or a deselection of a flight element in the flight matrix format or a flight itinerary in the flight itinerary format,
wherein after the selection action, the user is updated with flight itineraries not meeting the selected flight element removed from the flight matrix format, and
wherein after the deselection action, the user is updated with flight itineraries meeting the deselected flight element removed from the flight matrix format;
receiving the first action, the second action, or a request from the user for a transaction involving a flight itinerary booked by the user to a supplier providing the booked flight itinerary, wherein the transaction comprises a first data field linked to the user, a second data field linked to the user, and a third data field comprising data of the transaction;
assessing a risk of the transaction being fraudulent using the profile to provide an estimate of the fraudulent risk associated with the user, wherein the estimate of the fraudulent risk is performed by an artificial intelligent algorithm characterizing the transaction request to be whether or not a deviation from a pattern of the user behavior based on the actions and the behavior indications of the user characterized by the profile, and wherein a risk level higher than a threshold value causes the artificial intelligent algorithm to perform additional authentication steps;
accepting the transaction when the fraudulent risk estimate is below an acceptable value;
updating the profile with information about the transaction and the acceptance of the fraudulent risk of the user;
randomly selecting a processing value for the data field for the transaction;
modifying the transaction to change the first and third fields of the transaction, wherein the first data field is changed to link to the platform, with the change of the first data field configured to make the platform a responsible party, wherein the third data field is changed to the processing value, with the change of the third data field configured to avoid clustering the data field with subsequent or previous transactions for other users, wherein the second data field is remained unchanged, with the unchanged second data field configured to make the user an originated party; and
sending a substituted request to the supplier.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting a platform, and graphical user interface nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than commercial or legal interactions for tracking information about a user and their actions and analyzing them to determining a risk level for processing a transaction for a flight request. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, 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 additional elements of a platform and graphical user interface. The platform and graphical user interface 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 idea to the computer environment. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting an idea to particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(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 a platform and graphical user interface 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 component and limits the idea to the computer 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), 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"); 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 tracking information about a user and their actions and analyzing them to determining a risk level for processing a transaction for a flight request. Further, the displaying and user interface step 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). Additionally with respect to the flight matrix/list and elements which are used to track the user’s actions, this is akin to Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; and Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the Courts indicated the claims were not sufficient to show an improvement to technology, and the additional elements amounted to mere instructions to apply an exception, merely invoking computers or machinery as a tools to do. 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 2-7, 8-14, and 16-20 are all steps that fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas, further limiting the abstract as discussed above, describing how the content is tailored, types of activity tracked, the information being exchanged, and risk mitigation steps. 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
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 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