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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/20026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to applicant’s claims Amendments/REMARKs filed on 02/25/2026.
Priority Date: Prov.(12/07/2023)
Claim Status:
Amended claims:1-4, 6, 9-12, 14, and 16-19
Canceled claims: 5, 8, 13, and 20
New claims: 21-24
Pending claims : 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14-19,and 21-24
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (Step-2A) If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, (Step-2B) it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include: (a) Mental processes; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practice; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal behavior or Relations between People]; and (c) Mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis is based on the Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)-(see MPEP § 2106.05(a-c)(f-g)).
[Step-1] The claims are directed to a method/system/machine, which are a statutory category of invention.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for providing extensible fraud detection, associated with a transaction.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The method claim 1 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim 1 recites the limitations of:
receiving a first request to implement a first ruleset for evaluating fraud associated with a transaction, wherein the first ruleset is associated with a first plurality of features;
grouping the first plurality of features into a plurality of groups according to data source, such that each of the first plurality of features in each group is associated with the same respective data source;
dispatching, in parallel, a processing thread for each of the plurality of groups to obtain respective feature values of the plurality of features from the respective data source;
determining a first fraud indication associated with the first request by applying the feature values to the first ruleset;
in accordance with a determination that the first fraud indication exceeds a first threshold, overriding the first fraud indication as not fraud;
receiving a second request to implement a second ruleset for evaluating fraud associated with the transaction;
determining a second fraud indication associated with the second request by applying the second ruleset to a plurality of historical transactions; and
in accordance with a determination that the second fraud indication exceeds a second threshold, automatically blocking the second ruleset.
The claimed method/system/machine simply describes series of steps for providing extensible fraud detection, associated with a transaction.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via human commercial or business or transactional activities/interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more servers/processors, processing threads, devices and computer network nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human business activity. For example, without the structure elements language, the claim encompasses the activities that can be performed manually between the users and a third party. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are business interaction/sale activity and risk mitigation (fraud detection) that falls within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
[Step-2A]-Prong 2:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step-2B]
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including independent claims 9, and 16.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-24 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-24 are directed towards:
Using in claims (2-4,10-12, 17-18), the features satisfying a condition associated with a likelihood of reuse, storing in cache memory, a feature value associated with the one of the features; and obtaining the feature value in the cache memory for a second request to implement a second ruleset, wherein the fraud indication is provided to a transaction service for the transaction service to determine whether or not to block the transaction, wherein the plurality of features are obtained from data sources comprising at least one of: a machine learning model data source, an internal data object, or a database;
Claims (6-7,14-15 &19 ), applying the new ruleset to historical transactions; and presenting a result of the fraud indications associated with the new ruleset as applied to the historical transactions, further receiving a second request to implement a second ruleset and grouping the plurality of features of the first request with a second plurality of features of the second request into one or more common groups in response to a shared data source, wherein the first request is received through an application programming interface (API) of the service, and wherein the plurality of features are obtained from data sources comprising at least one of: a machine learning model data source, an internal data object, or a database.
Claim (21-24), wherein the processes further comprise grouping the first plurality of features of the first request with a second plurality of features of the second request into one or more common groups in response to a shared data source; and wherein the first plurality of features is obtained from data sources comprising each of a machine learning model data source, an internal data object, and a database.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under same rationale. Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-24 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
(Previously-Withdrawn and maintained)
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS:
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/25/2026 have been fully considered and they are deemed to be not all persuasive:
Response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection is considered and 103 rejection was[previously] withdrawn and maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 101 rejection are similar to previous arguments already submitted and addressed in the last office actions.
Examiner incorporates herein the response to arguments from previous office actions including one mailed on 12/01/2025.
Applicant argues further with 101 rejection in substance that "The claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea and the claims Recite” Significantly More" than abstract idea, and noted PEG-2019 [Step-2A-Prong One-Prong two & Step-2B].
Applicant also cited analogy with the court cases such as Ex, 35 and BASCOM.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Updated claim analysis as a whole including amended features are provided above again based on the latest Patent Eligibility Guidance [2019-PEG].
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14-19,and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The rejection of the previous action was a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank I'ntl. 573 U.S. (2014). Under Alice.
APPLICANT’s REMARKS:
Status of Claims:
“In the Office Action' dated December 1, 2025 ("Office Action"), the Office rejected claims 1-7 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for allegedly being directed to an abstract idea
without significantly more.
By this Amendment, Applicant amends claims 1-4, 6, 9-12, 14 and 16-19, cancels claims 5, 13, and 20 without prejudice to or disclaimer of the subject matter recited therein, and adds claims 21-24. Claim 8 was previously canceled without prejudice to or disclaimer of the subject matter recited therein, meaning that claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14-19, and 21-24 will be pending following entry of the amendments. The amendments to the claims are supported by the original claims and throughout the specification, including, for example, in 1[0048]. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections and requests reconsideration and allowance of the claims, as amended.”
Applicant-Initiated Interview: (Noted).
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
"Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Office Action at 2-6. Applicant does not concede or acquiesce to the rejection. Nevertheless, solely to expedite prosecution, Applicant amends the claims and respectfully submits that, as discussed in further detail below, the amended claims are patent-eligible according to the eligibility analysis under the M.P.E.P.
The Claims Are Not Directed to an "Abstract Idea"
“…;…;…;The Step 2A Prong One analysis articulated in MPEP § 2106.04 accounts for this cautionary principle by requiring a claim to recite (i.e., set forth or describe) an abstract idea in Prong One before proceeding to the Prong Two inquiry about whether the claim is directed to that idea, thereby separating claims reciting abstract ideas from those that are merely based on or involve an abstract idea. …;…;…;”
The Claims Are Integrated Into A Practical Application:
“Because the Office's analysis under Prong One of Step 2A is improper, analysis under Prong Two is unnecessary. Nevertheless, even assuming that the claims recite an abstract idea, which they do not, the claims are not "directed to" any alleged abstract idea under M.P.E.P. § 2106.04. …;…;…;
The claims mirror those of eligible claims 2 and 3 in Example 35 ("Verifying a Bank Customer's Identity to Permit an ATM Transaction") of the USPTO's eligibility examples….;…;…;”
The Claims Amount To "Significantly More" Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea:
“As noted above, the claims do not recite and are not directed to an abstract idea, and, thus, the "significantly more" inquiry does not apply. …;…;…;…;
These steps do not represent a mental process or method of organizing human activity, but, instead, address technical problems …;…;…;Thus, like in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claimed combination of additional elements presents a specific, discrete implementation of the alleged abstract idea. …;…;…;Thus, the additional elements (or in combination with other elements) of independent claims are not "well-known, routine, and conventional," and, thus, recite "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea. In this case, the Office fails to form a prima facie case of subject matter ineligibility because it does not provide any evidence that any recited elements (or combination of elements) are "well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the art" as it merely concludes without analysis that [t]he additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Office Action 5. For at least this additional reason, the § 101 rejection should be withdrawn.”
IN RESPONSE: Examiner Disagrees:
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 1: A method for deriving financial information from payment accounts is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(receiving a first request to implement a ruleset for evaluating fraud associated with a transaction,…a first plurality of features; grouping… groups according to data source, such that each of the first plurality of features in each group is associated with the same respective data source; dispatching, in parallel, a processing thread … from the respective data source; determining a first fraud indication … to the ruleset; in accordance with a determination…exceeds a first threshold, … as not fraud; receiving a second request…the transaction; determining…transactions; and in accordance with…the second ruleset. )
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping (b) of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions’).
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of:
(receiving a first request to implement a ruleset for evaluating fraud associated with a transaction,…a first plurality of features; grouping… groups according to data source, such that each of the first plurality of features in each group is associated with the same respective data source; dispatching, in parallel, a processing thread … from the respective data source; determining a first fraud indication … to the ruleset; in accordance with a determination…exceeds a first threshold, … as not fraud; receiving a second request…the transaction; determining…transactions; and in accordance with…the second ruleset. )
do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. “receiving…; grouping…data source; dispatching…ruleset; determining…the ruleset; in accordance…not fraud; receiving…transaction; determining…; and …the second ruleset.”)
do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification [0066-67]: processor, memory, instructions, storage medium, and electrical communication) as tools to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (g)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Alice-Step (2B): Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., processor, machine learning, equations, instructions, memory, electrical communication, and storage medium) amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or merely using generic components as tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
In support of “Mental Process ”or “Method of organizing Human activity”: It is to be noted that “the claimed invention is similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mental processes: “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind ). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), 2106.05(a)(g)(h)”
What Applicant describes here is how any generic computer process data without stating how or if this transformation is intended to, in some way improves the function of the computer itself.
Examiner notes that the computer processor limitations and the claim as a whole do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a device performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract.
A generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract. Examiner notes that the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related or economic problem. The focus of the claimed invention in the present is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “to a particular technological environment” does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.”
Applicant’s citation of BASCOM is non-persuasive because the claims at issue in BASCOM are readily distinguishable over the instant claims. In BASCOM v. AT&T: The claimed invention is able to provide individually customizable filtering at the remote ISP server by taking advantage of the technical capability of certain communication networks. …recite a system for filtering Internet content. The claimed filtering system is located on a remote ISP server that associates each network account with (1) one or more filtering schemes and (2) at least one set of filtering elements from a plurality of sets of filtering elements, thereby allowing individual network accounts to customize the filtering of Internet traffic associated with the account. For example, one filtering scheme could be “a word-screening type filtering scheme” and one set of filtering elements (from a plurality of sets) could be a “master list [] of disallowed words or phrases together with [an] individual [list of] words, phrases or rules.” Id. at 4:30-35.
Applicant’s referring to Claims 2-3,of Ex. 35:
In claims 2-3 of example 35 from the USPTO Guidelines, what made the claim directed to patent eligible subject matter is “…the combination of the steps (e.g., the ATM providing a random code, the mobile communication device’s generation of the image having encrypted code data in response to the random code, the ATM’s decryption and analysis of the code data, and the subsequent determination of whether the transaction should proceed based on the analysis of the code data) operates in a non-conventional and non‐generic way to ensure that the customer’s identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone. In combination, these steps do not represent merely gathering data for comparison or security purposes, but instead set up a sequence of events that address unique problems associated with bank cards and ATMs (e.g., the use of stolen or “skimmed” bank cards and/or customer information to perform unauthorized transactions).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the analogy of claims 1-24 of the present application to claims 2-3 of example 35 from the USPTO Guidelines
CONCLUSION
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Metnick et al (US 2022/0309511 A1) discloses Determining a Fraud Abatement Approach for a Potentially Fraudulent Exchange Item.
Fisi et al (US 10,719,830 B1) discloses Secondary Financial Session Monitoring Across Multiple Access Channels.
LeRoux et al (US-8046288-B1) discloses System and method for payment data processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691