DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in response to the Request for Reconsideration dated December 3, 2025.
2. Claims 1, and 4-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 2-3 have been canceled.
4. Claims 1, 4, 8-12, and 16-18 have been amended.
5. Applicant has submitted replacement drawings dated December 3, 2025 for Figures 1-3 and for Figure 4 (now Figures 4a-b) and Figure 5 (now Figures 5a-5b). These replacement drawings have been accepted.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
6. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
7. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP § 2103(I)(C); In re Johnson, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e. the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined.
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
The preamble of the instant claim 1 recites "[a] computer-implemented method for enhancing transaction security and reducing fraud for financial transactions, where the financial transaction can be made through any of a plurality of financial transaction channels, the method comprising:”
The preamble of the instant claim 17 recites “[a] system for enhancing transaction security and reducing fraud for financial transactions, the system comprising:”
In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claims. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999), Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or an intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation given patentable weight. Rowe v. Dror, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2111.02
In the instant case, “for enhancing transaction security and reducing fraud for financial transactions, where the financial transaction can be made through any of a plurality of financial transaction channels” as recited in the preamble of Claim 1 only states a purpose and/or the intended use of the invention and accordingly is not being assigned any patentable weight.
In the instant case, “for enhancing transaction security and reducing fraud for financial transactions” as recited in the preamble of Claim 17 only states a purpose and/or the intended use of the invention and accordingly is not being assigned any patentable weight.
Applicant utilizes the following terminology in their claims that is disclosed in the specification as follows:
Financial transaction channels:
Applicant’s specification does not define a financial transaction channel, however does disclose that a “channel” “shall include a means of exposing internal services (e.g., collections, payments, etc.) to consumers (e.g., customers, other financial institutions, companies, etc.) in a controlled manner.” (See Applicant Spec para 9) Additionally, there is disclosure that in some non-limiting aspects, the financial transaction initiating channel includes a personal computing device including an image sensor; or in other non-limiting aspects includes a banking device communicably coupled to the image sensor; or in some non-limiting aspects, includes an ATM including an image sensor. (See Applicant Spec para 42-44, 55-58) However, in some aspects, the financial transaction initiating channel is not defined by any hardware and the specification takes great care to not limit the scope of the invention. (See Applicant Spec paras 55, 58) This, coupled with the definition of a channel presented in the specification, indicates that the financial transaction channel does not necessarily reflect any hardware configuration itself, rather it might include hardware as part of the means of exposing internal services, but it may not. As such, for purposes of examination, the term financial transaction channel will be broadly construed to reflect any means that facilitates services to consumers.
Confidence score:
“A “confidence score,” as used herein, can include an estimated probability that the requested transaction will be executed as requested. A confidence score can further result in further scrutiny prior resulting in either denial or approval of the transaction upon submission. For example, according to some non-limiting aspects, the confidence score can include an estimated probability of a presented check clearing.” (See Applicant Spec para 15)
“In further reference to Figure 2, the method 200 can further include generating 210 transaction insights, such as a confidence score, based on the relevant data. It shall be appreciated that, according to some non-limiting aspects, the transaction insights can be statistically generated based on relevant data from the financial transaction 118 (Figure 1) and/or the one or more alternate sources of data 120 (Figure 1). The transaction insight, for example, can include a confidence score, or a probability that a transaction will be successfully completed based on population parameters (e.g., relevant data) falling between a set of values for a certain proportion of times. However, according to other non-limiting aspects, the transaction insights can be generated using a machine learning model.” (See Applicant Spec para 19)
As claimed, the “confidence score” is broadly claimed without any bounds on what is used as relevant to calculate the score or what that score means when calculated. As such, for purposes of examination, any confidence score would be applicable.
A review, analysis and transaction enrichment (“RATE”) computing device:
“The system, for example, can include a review, analysis and transaction enrichment (“RATE”) computing device communicably coupled to each of the plurality of channels via an application programming interface (“API”). The RATE computing device can include a processor and a memory configured to store a RATE engine. When executed by the processor, the RATE engine can cause the RATE computing device to receive an item associated with a transaction initiated by a channel of the plurality of channels. Based on this item, the RATE engine can identify data relevant to the transaction (e.g., information associated with the item or a party to the transaction) as well as a source of the identified data. The RATE engine can retrieve the identified data from the identified source and use it to calculate a “confidence score” for the transaction. The RATE engine can transmit the “confidence score” for the transaction to the transaction initiating channel.” (See Applicant Spec para 3)
Item:
“An “item” as used herein, can include an instrument, a promise, or order to pay money handled by a bank for collection for payment. For example, an item can include a check or a picture of a check.” (See Applicant Spec para 12)
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.
8. Claims 1 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 1 recites a method claim. Claim 17 recites a system claim.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of transaction security for financial transactions. This idea is described by the following limitations:
receiving a data file comprising a data item, wherein the data item is captured by a financial transaction initiating channel from a plurality of financial payment transaction channels, wherein the data item is captured upon initiation of the financial transaction in which funds are transferred from a payor’s account to a payee’s account and wherein the data item comprises an image of a check presented to a financial institution for payment;
identifying at least one party associated with the financial transaction based on the data item;
identifying at least one source of information associated with at least one party associated with the financial transaction;
capturing party data for the at least one party associated with the financial transaction from at least one source of information associated with at least one party associated with the financial transaction;
performing an analysis of the at least one party associated with the financial transaction based on the party data;
determining a party confidence score based on the analysis of the at least one party associated with the financial transaction;
performing an analysis of the data item based on the image of the check; and
determining a fraud score for the data item based on analysis of the data item;
calculating a collection confidence score for the financial transaction based on the fraud score for the data item and the party confidence score,
transmitting the collection confidence score to the financial transaction initiating channel; and
processing the financial transaction based on the collection confidence score.
Claim 17 recites the abstract idea of transaction security for financial transactions. The idea is described by the following limitations:
receive a data item captured by a financial transaction initiating channel from the plurality of financial transaction payment channels, wherein the data item is captured upon initiation of the financial transaction in which funds are transferred from a payor’s account to a payee’s account, and wherein the data item comprises an image of a check presented to a financial institution for payment;
identify at least one party associated with the financial transaction based on the data item;
identify at least one source of information associated with at least one party associated with the financial transaction;
capture party data for the at least one party associated with the financial transaction from at least one source of information associated with at least one party associated with the financial transaction;
perform an analysis of the at least one party associated with the financial transaction based on the party data;
determine a party confidence score based on the analysis of the at least one party associated with the financial transaction;
perform an analysis of the data item based on the image of the check;
determine a fraud score for the data item based on analysis of the data item;
calculate a collection confidence score for the financial transaction based on the fraud score for the data item and the party confidence score;
transmit the collection confidence score to the transaction initiating channel; and
recommend a security action based on the collection confidence score.
The abstract idea recited describes certain methods of organizing human activity. The steps involve fundamental economic principles or practices including mitigating risk in financial transactions; commercial interactions in the form of marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) as noted above.
In the case of the instant claims, the claims may be reciting no more entering presentation of a data item, identifying at least one party associated with the financial transaction and associated information, capturing party data, analyzing the data, determining a confidence score for the party, analyzing the image of the check and determining a fraud score based on analysis of the check image and calculating a collective confidence score for the financial transaction based on the fraud score for the item and the party confidence score and either processing the transaction based on the score (as in Claim 1) or recommending a security action based on the score (as in Claim 17). (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 1 recites a computer system that comprises a programmed processor and a memory storing a machine learning model; and an electronic data network.
Claim 17 recites a review, analysis and transaction enrichment (“RATE”) computing device, an API, a processor, a memory configured to store a RATE engine, and an electronic data network.
The claims recite a computer system that comprises a programmed processor, a memory storing a machine learning model, a RATE computing device, an API, a processor, a memory configured to store a RATE engine and an electronic data network at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic functions) as noted in Applicant’s specification at paragraphs 11, 13, 38, 54) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Use of a computer 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 the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.)
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network; performing repetitive calculations; storing and retrieving information in memory and electronically scanning or extracting data– all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“In one general aspect, the present invention is directed to computer-implemented systems and methods that are configured to enhance transaction security and reduce fraud for financial transactions initiated across a plurality of channels in a consistent and streamlined manner, regardless of channel differences. The system, for example, can include a review, analysis and transaction enrichment (“RATE”) computing device communicably coupled to each of the plurality of channels via an application programming interface (“API”). The RATE computing device can include a processor and a memory configured to store a RATE engine. When executed by the processor, the RATE engine can cause the RATE computing device to receive an item associated with a transaction initiated by a channel of the plurality of channels. Based on this item, the RATE engine can identify data relevant to the transaction (e.g., information associated with the item or a party to the transaction) as well as a source of the identified data. The RATE engine can retrieve the identified data from the identified source and use it to calculate a “confidence score” for the transaction. The RATE engine can transmit the “confidence score” for the transaction to the transaction initiating channel.” (See Applicant Spec para 3)
“Referring now to Figure 1, a block diagram of a system 100 configured to enhance transaction security and reduce fraud is depicted according to at least one non-limiting aspect of the present disclosure. According to the non-limiting aspect of Figure 1, the system 100 can include a plurality of channels 101 configured to communicate with a review, analysis and transaction enrichment (“RATE”) engine 116 can be stored in a memory of a RATE computing device, which can further include a processor configured to execute the RATE engine 116 to perform the functionality described herein. The RATE engine 116 can include one or more interfaces providing abstraction to internally orchestrated or choreographed calls, which can perform an analysis of an item presented by one of the plurality of channels, save data for future use, etc. The plurality of channels 101, for example, can include a banking device 102 (e.g., a teller’s computer), an automatic transaction machine (“ATM”) 104, a personal computing device 106 (e.g., a personal computer, a laptop, a mobile phone, a tablet, etc.), a point-of-sale (“POS”) device (e.g., deployed at a small business) 108, a corporate and/or institutional banking (“C&IB”) device 110, and/or an inclearings device 112, amongst other channels. It shall be appreciated that the plurality of channels 101 depicted in Figure 1 is non-exclusive and that the system 100 promotes channel modernization. The API 114 is representative of one or more APIs which are configured to be consumable by any channel of the plurality of channels 101 providing specific interfaces, some of which will communicate with the RATE engine 116. In other words, the system 100 and API 114 of Figure 1 provides a standard configuration by which any channel of an extensible plurality of channels 101 can communicate with the RATE engine 116. However, the rules by which any channel of the plurality of channels 101 can be customized, such that each channel of the plurality of channels 101 can function independently relative to the others. The plurality of channels 101 can utilize a number of different formats to communicate messages to and from the API 114, including real-time gross settlement (“RTGS”), national electronic funds transfer (“NEFT”), electronic clearing service (“ECS”), immediate payment service (“IMPS”), Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (“SWIFT”), short messaging service (“SMS”) banking, Internet banking, and/or automatic teller machine (“ATM”) Banking, amongst others. The API 114 can be configured to communicate with any of these formats via an industry standard messaging protocol, such as ISO 8583, REST, GraphQL, and/or SOAP, amongst other.” (See Applicant Spec para 11)
“As depicted in the non-limiting aspect of Figure 1, the API 114 can enable each of the plurality of channels 101 to selectively communicate with the RATE engine 116. The API 114, for example, can enable each of the plurality of channels 101 to communicate with the RATE engine 116 over a network, using a common language and/or protocol. In other words, the API 114 can be configured to convey a set structure for requests and responses so data can transfer between each of the plurality of channels 101 and the RATE engine 116. Upon initiating a request to evaluate based on an item (e.g., a check, a wire, an ACH transaction, a real-time payment (“RTP”)), any of the plurality of channels 101 can generate an API call comprising a transaction request, which can be transmitted to the RATE engine 116 via the API 114. The transaction, for example, can involve a transfer of funds from a payor’s account to a payee’s account. According to some non-limiting aspects, the transaction request can include an item submission. An “item,” as used herein, can include an instrument, a promise, or order to pay money handled by a bank for collection or payment. For example, an item can include a check or a picture of a check.” (See Applicant Spec para 12)
“In further reference to Figure 1, the RATE engine 116 can include instructions and/or a model stored in a memory and configured to be executed by a processor. When executed by the processor, the RATE engine 116 can cause the processor to receive a call associated with a transaction initiated by one of the plurality of channels 101. In response to the call, the RATE engine 116 can retrieve data associated with the transaction from one or more sources. For example, if the RATE engine 116 is hosted by a financial institution 118 involved in the transaction, the RATE engine 116 can directly access information relevant to the transaction, itself, or a party to the transaction from the financial institution 118. For example, according to such non-limiting aspects, the transaction might involve funds moving to or from an account hosted by the financial institution 118. Accordingly, the RATE engine 116 can retrieve information from the financial institution 118 such as an account status, an account balance, a signature verification, and/or an item verification, amongst other information relevant to the transaction and within the possession of the financial institution 118. The information can further include customer specific insights including behavioral insights, spending patterns, and/or a party’s history, amongst others.” (See Applicant Spec para 13)
“However, according to some non-limiting aspects, the RATE engine 116 may not be associated with a financial institution 118 involved in the transaction, or any financial institution at all. Even if the RATE engine 116 does not have direct access to the financial institution 118 involved in the transaction, the RATE engine 116 can otherwise access information relevant to the transaction and/or parties via one or more alternate sources of data 120 can include any third-party database, website, or portal by which the RATE engine 116 can access relevant information such as an entity status, a credit score, employment history, spending activity, social media activity, dark web activity, and/or a criminal record, among other information. It shall be appreciated that various components of the system 100, including the plurality of channels 101 the API 114, the RATE engine 116, the financial institution 118, and computing devices associated therewith, and the at least one alternate data source 120 can be configured to communicate via various networks, such as the Internet and/or a payment network, such as ACH.” (See Applicant Spec para 14)
“According to some non-limiting aspects, the data relevant to the financial transaction includes information associated with at least one party associated with the financial transaction, and the method further includes performing, via the programmed processor, an analysis of the at least one party associated with the financial transaction based on the data relevant to the financial transaction, and calculating the confidence score is further based on the analysis of the at least one party associated with the financial transaction.” (See Applicant Spec para 39)
“According to some non-limiting aspects, the data relevant to the financial transaction includes information associated with the data item, and the method further includes performing, via the programmed processor, an analysis of the data item based on the data relevant to the financial transaction, and calculating the confidence score is further based on the analysis of the data item.” (See Applicant Spec para 40)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 1 and 17 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 2-16 and 18-20 further define the abstract ideas presented in respective Independent Claims 1 and 17 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above.
Dependent Claims 4 and 18 further detail that the data item comprises an image of a check and that the capture of the check is via an image sensor. The additional element of an image sensor is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (See Applicant Spec paras 41-44, 55-57)
Dependent Claims 5-7 and 19-20 provides further details on the financial transaction initiating channel, noting it can be via a personal computing device comprising the image sensor (Cl. 5 & 19); via a banking device communicably coupled to the image sensor (Cl. 6); and via an ATM comprising an image sensor (Cl. 7 & 20) The additional element of an image sensor on the personal computing device, or a banking device or an ATM are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (See Applicant Spec paras 41-44, 55-57)
Dependent Claims 8-9 provide further details as to the at least one source of information associated with at least one party associated with the financial transaction comprises a financial institution and that the party data may be at least one of an account status, an account balance, a signature verification, or a data item verification or combinations thereof. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claims 10-11 provide further details as to the at least one source of information associated with at least one party associated with the financial transaction comprises a third-party database and that the party data relevant to the financial transaction comprises at least one of an entity status, a credit score, an employment history, spending activity, social media activity, dark web activity, or a criminal record, or combinations thereof. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claims 12-15 provide further details as to a security action based on the collection confidence score, implementing the security action wherein the security action comprises at least one of denying the financial transaction request, resetting a password, monitoring an implicated account, cancelling a credential associated with the implicated account, or establishing a maximum financial transaction amount for future financial transaction requests involving the implicated account; and wherein the security action comprises placing a hold on the payor’s account by transmitting an instruction to place a hold on the payor’s account to a financial institution associated with the payor’s account. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 16 further details that the various channels of the plurality of financial transaction payment channels can utilize at least one of a plurality of formats to communicate messages, wherein the plurality of formats comprises at least one of a real-time gross settlement (“RTGS”), a national electronic funds transfer (“NEFT”), an electronic clearing service (“ECS”), an immediate payment service (“IMPS”), a Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (“SWIFT”), a short messaging service (“SMS”) banking, an Internet banking, and/or an automatic teller machine (“ATM”). This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
No further additional hardware components other than those found in the independent claims are recited, thus it is presumed that the claims are further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented in the independent claims. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea .
Thus, Claims 1 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Relevant Prior Art Made of Record Not Currently Applied
Jurss (US PG Pub. 2013/0198071) – Jurss discloses her invention as to systems and methods for a mobile solution to enable users to perform financial transaction over a network using a mobile device. (See Jurss Abstract) In one embodiment, the image can be obtained using image capture technology on the user’s mobile device and users can then perform a financial transaction using the verified images over a network in order to conduct a remote financial transaction such as applying a deposit, payment, or cash load to a designated account which is linked to the user’s mobile account in real-time or near real-time. (See Jurss para 20) In further embodiments, a mobile application can be stored on a user’s mobile device and configured to perform the financial transactions using the PAN linked to multiple user accounts. (See Jurss para 23) In addition, images of multiple financial payment instruments can be captured and aggregated for processing as a single transaction. (See Jurss para 23) The transactions involving aggregated instruments can be further aggregated with other unrelated transactions, such as transactions from an ATM and processed as a single transaction. (See Jurss para 23)
Clower (US PG Pub. 2020/0082407) - Clower discloses his invention as a to real-time system and method for invoking a fraud alert notification to a bank prompted by an abandoned deposit following a denied accelerated funding request for a financial item. (See Clower Abstract)
The disclosure describes a system for providing risk analytics through which an item presented for payment can be instantly decisioned to determine if a customer qualifies for accelerated credit. (See Clower para 31) With the Instant Funding System, banks are able to offer funds available funds instantly from items sourced to various entities and presented by a particular customer from with a decreased risk of loss due to unpaid items by tracking and analyzing daily check transactions processed by a particular bank on the previous business day; all returned checks both presented to the bank for deposit (sourced to other institutions) and sourced to the bank. (See Clower 31) Analysis of the depositor’s information file is also performed. (See Clower para 31) This information is stored in various databases associated or operated by the banks or third parties and used to facilitate deposit transactions processed in a teller line, though a mobile device via a dedicated application, or an automated teller machine (ATM) to determine the level of risk tolerance for a particular item. (See Clower para 31)
Pigg et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0358140) (“Pigg”) – disclosing methods, systems and computer-readable media for determining whether a check may be cashed at an automated teller machine (ATM) are provided. (See Pigg Abstract) The ATM may capture check image data from the face of the check and the ATM may transmit the data to a check cashing computing platform. (See Pigg Abstract) The check cashing computing platform may determine whether the account on which the check is drawn is an account of a first financial institution associated with the ATM, or the account is an account of a second financial institution. (See Pigg Abstract) A first or second set of rules may be applied to the check based on this determination to determine an overall check cashing risk score and a determination is then made, based on the overall check cashing risk score as to whether the check may be cashed or the request to cash the check may be denied. (See Pigg Abstract)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered as further detailed below.
As to the Drawing Objections:
Applicant is thanked for the replacement drawings submitted to obviate the previous concerns. The replacement drawings have been accepted and the objection accordingly withdrawn. (See Applicant Arguments dated 12/3/2025, page 8)
As to the 112(a) Rejections:
Applicant is thanked for the clarifying amendments and arguments. (Id. at pages 8-10) The rejection has accordingly been withdrawn.
As to the 112(b) Rejections:
Applicant is thanked for the amendments made to resolve the 112(b) issues previously raised. (Id. at page 11) The rejections have accordingly been withdrawn.
As to the 103 Rejections:
There is no prior art rejection being applied at the present time. (Id. at pages 11-12)
As to the 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and improve the functioning of technology. (Id. at page 13) Applicant argues, that for instance, Claim 1 has a programmed processor and a memory that stores a machine learning model that is used to calculate a collection confidence score for the financial transaction based on the fraud score for the data item and the party confidence score. (Id.) Applicant continues, noting that Claim 1 further recites transmitting, via the computer system, the collection confidence score to the financial initiating channel and processing the financial transaction based on the collection confidence score thus integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the collection confidence score from a machine learning model is utilized to process a financial transaction. (Id.)
Applicant then notes that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can. (Id. at pages 13-14)
While Applicant is correct that software embodiments can reflect improvements and are not a bar to subject matter patent eligibility per se, there still must be an improvement shown.
As to the substantive issues at hand, Examiner is of another opinion. Claim 1 recites a memory storing a machine learning model, followed by a number of steps where data is identified, analysis is conducted, a party confidence score is determined based on the analysis of the at least one party, then performing an analysis based on the image of the check and a fraud score is determined. A collection confidence score based on the combined party confidence score and fraud score is calculated by entering the scores into the machine learning model and the collection score is sent to the financial transaction initiating channel for processing the transaction. Notably, in Claim 17, there is not even a recitation of a machine learning model at all.
The claims themselves do not appear to reflect the technological improvements that Applicant is alleging the claims are reflecting. There is no insight into how the security is enhanced or improved, nor how efficiency is accomplished in the claims. Applicant argues there are unprecedented insights being generated in real time, however the claims do not disclose such a method. Rather, the independent claims are performing calculations on information provided to the computer. This is not a persuasive argument and the 101 rejection is maintained.
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 AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 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 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 March 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights