DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to amendment filed 2/24/2026.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to a system; claims 9-14 are directed to a method; claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium – each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
The limitations of the independent claims 1, 9 and 15 – storing data regarding a plurality of transaction parties; receiving, [from a user device], data regarding a transaction request for a transaction between a first party and a second party, the data regarding the transaction request comprising a first set of party characteristics associated with the first party; determining, [using one or more machine learning models], a predicted characteristic of the transaction request based on historical data regarding the first party, the second party, or both; determining a confidence indicator regarding the first party based on comparing a number of returned transactions initiated by the first party with a returned transaction threshold; verifying the first set of party characteristics based on determining that the first party is one of the plurality of transaction parties and determining that the confidence indicator is greater than a confidence threshold; determining that at least one characteristic of the first set of party characteristics is incorrect based on: comparing the first set of party characteristics with the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties; and comparing the predicted characteristic with the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties; [causing the user device to display a notification] indicating that the at least one characteristic is incorrect, wherein [the notification is overlayed on a transaction portal interface]; and responsive to receiving a user selection of the notification, [causing the user device to display an additional notification] including an indication of one or more characteristics of the first set of party characteristics that does not match the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties – fall under the abstract idea groupings Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The dependent limitations recite limitations –
(Claims 2, 10, 16)
storing one or more party characteristics corresponding to each transaction party of the plurality of transaction parties; and
verifying the first set of party characteristics is further based on determining that a second party characteristic of the first set of party characteristics matches at least one of the one or more party characteristics corresponding to the first party.
(Claims 3, 11,17)
storing a number of completed transactions for each transaction party of the plurality of transaction parties; and
verifying the first set of party characteristics is further based on determining that a number of completed transactions of the first party is at or above a predetermined threshold.
(Claim 4, 12, 18)
determining a confidence score regarding the first party based on at least one of:
comparing the first set of party characteristics to a list of party characteristics, identifying a government issued identification characteristic of the first party;
comparing a number of returned transactions initiated by the first party with a returned transaction threshold; or
a type of interface of the transaction portal interface;
wherein verifying the first set of party characteristics is further based on determining that the confidence score is greater than a confidence score threshold.
(Claim 5, 13, 19)
storing a number of completed transactions for each transaction party of the plurality of transaction parties; and
verifying the first set of party characteristics is further based on determining that a number of completed transactions of the first party is at or below a predetermined threshold and that the confidence score is greater than the confidence score threshold.
(Claims 6, 14, 20)
wherein the system is further configured to cause the user device to display the confidence score, wherein the confidence score is overlayed on the transaction portal interface.
(Claim 7)
wherein the data regarding the transaction request further comprises an indication that the transaction is a first transaction between the first party and the second party.
(Claim 8)
the transaction portal interface is provided on the user device via a third-party provider application; and
the at least one processing circuit is configured to cause the user device to display the transaction portal interface and the notification simultaneously.
– that also fall under Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 25-36, 39, 41-45, 48, 50, 84 recite a combination of judicial exceptions.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e)
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: system comprising processor and memory; user device; portal interface; machine learning model(s). Examiner finds that any additional element(s), beyond the judicial exception, has been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of additional elements does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than “use the computer as a tool” and/or “link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – storing data regarding a plurality of transaction parties; receiving, [from a user device], data regarding a transaction request for a transaction between a first party and a second party, the data regarding the transaction request comprising a first set of party characteristics associated with the first party; determining, [using one or more machine learning models], a predicted characteristic of the transaction request based on historical data regarding the first party, the second party, or both; determining a confidence indicator regarding the first party based on comparing a number of returned transactions initiated by the first party with a returned transaction threshold; verifying the first set of party characteristics based on determining that the first party is one of the plurality of transaction parties and determining that the confidence indicator is greater than a confidence threshold; determining that at least one characteristic of the first set of party characteristics is incorrect based on: comparing the first set of party characteristics with the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties; and comparing the predicted characteristic with the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties; [causing the user device to display a notification] indicating that the at least one characteristic is incorrect, wherein [the notification is overlayed on a transaction portal interface]; and responsive to receiving a user selection of the notification, [causing the user device to display an additional notification] including an indication of one or more characteristics of the first set of party characteristics that does not match the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties – that merely uses generic computers as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Hence, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B: In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – storing data regarding a plurality of transaction parties; receiving, [from a user device], data regarding a transaction request for a transaction between a first party and a second party, the data regarding the transaction request comprising a first set of party characteristics associated with the first party; determining, [using one or more machine learning models], a predicted characteristic of the transaction request based on historical data regarding the first party, the second party, or both; determining a confidence indicator regarding the first party based on comparing a number of returned transactions initiated by the first party with a returned transaction threshold; verifying the first set of party characteristics based on determining that the first party is one of the plurality of transaction parties and determining that the confidence indicator is greater than a confidence threshold; determining that at least one characteristic of the first set of party characteristics is incorrect based on: comparing the first set of party characteristics with the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties; and comparing the predicted characteristic with the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties; [causing the user device to display a notification] indicating that the at least one characteristic is incorrect, wherein [the notification is overlayed on a transaction portal interface]; and responsive to receiving a user selection of the notification, [causing the user device to display an additional notification] including an indication of one or more characteristics of the first set of party characteristics that does not match the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties – into significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues that the claimed limitations – “determining, using one or more machine learning models, a predicted characteristic of the transaction request based on historical data regarding the first party, the second party, or both,” “determining that at least one characteristic of the first set of party characteristics is incorrect based on comparing the first set of party characteristics with the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties,” “causing the user device to display a notification indicating that the at least one characteristic is incorrect, wherein the notification is overlayed on a transaction portal interface,” and “responsive to receiving a user selection of the notification, causing the user device to display an additional notification including an indication of one or more characteristics of the first set of party characteristics that does not match the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties” – are not part of the abstract idea of commercial or legal interaction and/or fundamental economic practices or principles.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation “determining a predicted characteristic of a transaction request based on historical data regarding a first party” involves observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion and hence falls under the Mental Process category of abstract ideas. Using machine learning models as tools to carry out such prediction does not change the abstract nature of the limitation.
Similarly, each of the following limitations:
“determining a confidence indicator regarding the first party based on comparing a number of returned transactions initiated by the first party with a returned transaction threshold,”
“verifying the first set of party characteristics based on determining that the first party is one of the plurality of transaction parties and determining that the confidence indicator is greater than a confidence threshold,”
“determining that at least one characteristic of the first set of party characteristics is incorrect based on:
comparing the first set of party characteristics with the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties; and
comparing the predicted characteristic with the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties,”
“verifying the first set of party characteristics based on determining that the first party is one of the plurality of transaction parties,”
“determining that at least one characteristic of the first set of party characteristics is incorrect based on comparing the first set of party characteristics with the data regarding the plurality of transaction parties,”
involves observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion and hence falls under the Mental Process category of abstract ideas.
Applicant offers no persuasive reason why each of the above steps cannot be practically performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C. 1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are “human cognitive actions” that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as “directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging.” 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
Here the claimed invention is directed to verifying that the confidence indicator for a party to a transaction is greater than a threshold, determining one characteristic is incorrect based on comparison with predicted characteristic and notifying the data which is similar to the verification and tabulation in Voter Verified that the Court indicated humans have performed for hundreds of years. But for the additional elements – processor, user device, portal interface – each of the steps can be carried out by humans orally or using pencil and paper. See Versata Development Group v. SAP America (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”). As stated in FairWarning, “the inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Symantec”) (“With the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”).
Examiner also points out that the steps of receiving a transaction request, determining confidence indicator regarding a party to the transaction, verifying the characteristics of the party, and notifying the user that one or more characteristics of the party does not match data – also describe Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles and/or Commercial/Legal Interactions because verifying a party for fraud is one of the ancient practices in business and commerce. For the above reasons, the claims also fall under the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claimed invention merely places this age-old abstract idea of fraud detection in an automated context, such as carrying out transactions on mobile devices (Fig. 5, 6), which is not indicative of patent eligibility. Courts have consistently held that the mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“But merely ‘configur[ing]’ generic computers in order to ‘supplant and enhance’ an otherwise abstract manual process is precisely the sort of invention that the Alice Court deemed ineligible for patenting.”) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”).
Applicant asserts that the claims are patent eligible for reciting an improvement to computing technology by more accurately identifying errant or fraudulent requests using machine learning model to predict transaction characteristics and reducing the amount of network communication by preventing errant or fraudulent requests.
Examiner finds this completely unpersuasive.
First, there is no recitation of ‘accurately identifying errant or fraudulent requests’ or ‘reducing amount of network communication’ in the claims. Second, any hypothetical fraudulent request identification or reduction of communication a) merely reflects a net result or effect, b) represents speculative fraud detection that may never be present, and c) does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely applies abstract idea(s) – e.g., using one or machine learning model(s) to predict the characteristic of a transaction request based on historical data – to aim for an aspirational result. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (1) (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”), (3) (“describes “the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished” and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result”). Third, and more importantly, the improvement asserted by the Applicant does not belong to the technical sphere but instead pertains to the abstract domain. See MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field II (“However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”). Similarly, the present claims merely improve the abstract idea(s) of identifying that the characteristic of a party to a transaction is incorrect, but it does not improve the processor or the user device. The claimed invention has nothing to do with improvement of computers or technology. The focus of the claims is not on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, but rather, on using a machine learning model to implement the abstract idea of predicting a characteristic of the transaction request based on historical data regarding a party to the transaction, verifying whether the confidence indicator regarding the party is greater than a threshold, and notifying that a characteristic of the party does not meet the data – all of which are abstract fraud detection indicators as opposed to being technical improvements. The claims provide the user device with notifications that at least one characteristic concerning a party to a transaction is incorrect which may help the user to avert potential fraud but does not improve computers or technology.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) (“2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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.”). Similarly here, Examiner notes that claims 1, 9 and 15 merely recite the idea of solution or outcome of the application of one or more machine learning models to predict the characteristic of a transaction request based on historical data regarding a party to a transaction and notify the user if one or more characteristics is incorrect and does not match data regarding the party – all of which are abstract mental processes or fundamental economic practices and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Indeed, nothing in claims 1, 9 and 15 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“To be a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, we have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.”).
With respect the Applicant’s assertion that the claims recited processes that are not well-understood, routine or conventional, Examiner points out that “well-understood, routine or conventional” (WURC) analysis applies to the additional elements and not to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022] (“Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.”). As noted above, each of the limitations identified by the Applicant falls under Mental Process or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. To the extent that the Applicant contends that the claims describe an unconventional process, this merely applies to the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(a) (“It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”). See also Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d at 1093 (“The abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive concept, ‘no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”). See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”). SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.”).
For the above reasons, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
103
The previous obviousness rejection has been withdrawn based on the amendments and arguments filed 2/24/2026.
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 ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights