DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on February 19, 2026.
Claims 1–20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 19, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1–20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
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.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1–11 and 17–20 are directed to a process (“A method”), and claims 12–16 are directed to a machine (“A system”). Thus, claims 1–20 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–20, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
receiving a transaction request . . ., the transaction request including a timestamp and card identification data . . .;
comparing the transaction request to all transactions received . . ., the comparing for identifying transactions:
received within a predetermined time immediately preceding the timestamp;
that comprise card identification data that is identical to the card identification data of the transaction request; and
that comprise a geolocation that is within a predetermined proximity to the geolocation of the transaction request;
in response to the comparing, identifying a number of transactions greater than a first threshold that are received within the predetermined time and the geolocation is within the predetermined proximity;
prior to declining the transaction request, triggering a multi-factor authentication for authenticating a user of the smart card, the multi-factor authentication comprising:
executing each of a first-factor authentication, a second-factor authentication and a third-factor authentication; and
in response to a receipt of authenticated responses to each of the first-factor authentication, the second-factor authentication and the third-factor authentication, overriding a declining of the transaction request and executing . . . the transaction;
in response to a receipt of an unauthenticated response to at least one or more of the first-factor authentication, the second-factor authentication and the third-factor authentication:
executing a dynamic geofencing on the geolocation associated with the transaction request, the geofencing comprising:
declining . . . transaction requests . . . within the geolocation; and
declining . . . transaction requests received . . . that are being executed within the geolocation.
Claims 1–11, therefore, recite monitoring, restricting, and authenticating transaction requests, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk. The claims also recite comparing a number of transactions and their locations, which is the abstract idea of mental processes because they involve observations and evaluations that can be performed by the human mind.
For claim 12, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
. . . receive the transaction request . . ., the transaction request including a timestamp and card identification data . . .;
execute a fraud detection . . . to:
retrieve geolocation coordinates . . . of a source of the transaction request;
create a timestamp of a time of an execution of the transaction request;
compare the transaction request to all transactions received, . . . to identify transactions that:
were received . . . within a predetermined time immediately preceding the timestamp;
comprise card identification data that is identical to the card identification data of the transaction request; and
comprise a geolocation that is within a predetermined proximity to the geolocation of the transaction request;
in response to the comparing, identify a number of transactions greater than a first threshold that are received within the predetermined time and the geolocation is within the predetermined proximity;
prior to declining the transaction request, triggering a multi-factor authentication for authenticating a user of the smart card, the multi-factor authentication comprising:
executing each of a first-factor authentication, a second-factor authentication and a third-factor authentication; and
in response to a receipt of authenticated responses to each of the first-factor authentication, the second-factor authentication and the third-factor authentication, overriding a declining of the transaction request and executing . . . the transaction;
in response to a receipt of an unauthenticated response to at least one or more of the first-factor authentication, the second-factor authentication and the third-factor authentication:
execute a dynamic geofencing on the geolocation associated with the transaction request, the geofencing comprising:
. . . declining transaction requests . . . within the geolocation; and
. . . declining transaction requests from being executed . . . that are being executed within the geolocation.
Claims 12–16, therefore, recite monitoring, restricting, and authenticating transaction requests, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk. The claims also recite comparing a number of transactions and their locations, which is the abstract idea of mental processes because they involve observations and evaluations that can be performed by the human mind.
For claim 17, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
receiving a transaction request . . ., the transaction request including a timestamp and card identification data . . .;
comparing the transaction request to all transactions received . . .:
that were received . . . within a predetermined time immediately preceding the timestamp; and
that comprise a geolocation that is within a predetermined proximity to the geolocation of the transaction request;
in response to the comparing, identifying a number of transactions greater than a first threshold that are received within the predetermined time and the geolocation is within the predetermined proximity; and
following the identifying, executing a dynamic geofencing on the geolocation associated with the transaction request, the geofencing:
restricting, . . . executing transactions received . . . from within the geolocation; and
restricting, . . . executing transactions received . . . that are being executed within the geolocation.
Claims 17–20, therefore, recite monitoring and restricting transaction requests, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk. The claims also recite comparing a number of transactions and their locations, which is the abstract idea of mental processes because they involve observations and evaluations that can be performed by the human mind.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“payment network”, “payment switch interface”, “smart card”, “payment gateway”, “central server”, “fraud detection engine”, “IP address”, “generative artificial intelligence (“AI”)”, and “software transactional memory”). These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to perform and track the transaction requests, and restrict and reauthenticate users. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 1, 12, and 17 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2–11, 13–16, and 18–20 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 2, 3, 5, 19, and 20, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the transaction requesting recited in claims 1 and 17 by further specifying which transactions are declined—“within an area bound by the geolocation”, “radius of 10 kilometers”, “for a predetermined period of time”, “includes an area surrounding the geolocation”, and “distance not greater than 10 kilometers”.
For claim 4, the additional recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This dependent claim only narrows the transaction requesting recited in claim 1 by further specifying how the geofencing is overridden—“request to override is received by an amount of users greater than a second threshold and each . . . is authenticated”.
For claims 6–9, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the transaction requesting recited in claim 1 by further specifying that the steps are repeated when multiple transactions are requested—“receiving a second”, “comparing the second . . . extending the geofencing”, “not within the predetermined proximity . . . executing a geofencing”, and “a third . . . a fourth . . . and a fifth transaction request . . . geofencing each”.
For claim 10, the additional recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This dependent claim only narrows the transaction requesting recited in claim 1 by further specifying the predetermined proximity—“distance not greater than 10 kilometers”.
For claims 11, 13, and 18, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the transaction requesting recited in claims 1, 12, and 17 by further specifying how the requests are compared—“first threshold is three transactions”, “uses generative artificial intelligence (“AI”)”, and “comparing . . . to all . . . card identification data that is identical”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“fraud detection engine”). These claims do recite generative artificial intelligence, but again, this is also merely being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The artificial intelligence only provides an alternative means for comparing transaction requests, rather than creating any type of improvement to the technology itself. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 14, the additional recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This dependent claim only narrows the transaction requesting recited in claim 12 by further specifying how the requests are transmitted—“using software transactional memory (“STM”)”. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This claim does recite software transactional memory, but again, this is also merely being used as a tool to communicate the transaction requests. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 15 and 16, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the transaction requesting recited in claim 12 by further specifying the smart card users—“associated with one user” and “each associated with a different user”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“smart cards”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Examiner failed to address the elements that render the claims allowable, including “comparing the transaction request to all transactions received by the payment network” and “declining, via the payment network, transaction requests received from the smart card within the geolocation; and declining, via the payment network, transaction requests received from a plurality of smart cards associated with the payment network that are being executed within the geolocation”. Applicant explains that the previous arguments only allege that the claims still recite the abstract idea of comparing transactions and locations and monitoring and authenticating transactions. Examiner’s arguments, however, address both of these limitations to explain how they do not integrate the claims into a practical application. As discussed below, and in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 above, these claim limitations fail to make the claims patent eligible because they still merely apply the abstract idea to generic technology to make it more secure.
Applicant then repeats the arguments previously presented, which have been addressed again below.
First, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite any abstract idea. Applicant first explains that the claims do not recite any mental process because the claims compare all transactions received by a payment network to determine fraud, which cannot be performed by a human. Applicant further explains that the claims decline transactions from smart cards performed electronically over a payment network, which also cannot be performed by the human mind. The claims, however, still recite comparing transactions and their locations, even if the claims apply this to technology to compare multiple different transactions. Applicant next argues that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity because they include the novel idea of identifying high risk transaction locations to proactively decline requests from those locations, which is not a fundamental practice. The claims, again, however, still recite monitoring and authenticating transactions, which is a commercial transaction. The claims then merely apply these abstract ideas to the technology recited merely using it as a tool to make them more efficient, rather than improving the technology itself in any way. Thus, claims 1–20 do recite abstract ideas.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features or combination of features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
Kala et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,295,310, discloses detecting transaction fraud.
Salonen, U.S. Patent App. No. 2012/0158590, discloses detecting fraudulent use of credit cards and temporarily blocking them.
Bentley et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2008/0146193, discloses authenticating a user based on geo-location history.
Howe et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2013/0290119, discloses confirming card holder geolocation through a payment network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 PM 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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272–3955. 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.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696