DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 27, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the RCE filed on March 27, 2026.
• Claims 1-2, 8, 10-11, 17, and 19-20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 10-11 regarding the Desjardins decision, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. As an initial matter, regarding the ARP decision, in Desjardins, the opinion found that the claims improved technology by “addressing challenges in continual learning and model efficiency by reducing storage requirements and preserving task performance across sequential training.” The opinion found that the limitation of "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task" constituted an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and this was supported by the Specification describing the improvement of “effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks.” Regarding the claims of the instant application, however, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0001]-[0004], describing improving transaction fraud detection. The Examiner notes that improving security of a financial transaction describes an improvement to a business or commercial process, not an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field.
Furthermore, and regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12, that the claims reflect technical solutions to technical problems, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant further argues on pages 12-16 that the claims address technical problems related to machine learning, data storage, and electronic payment, and relies on various portions of the Specification purporting to be directed to improving a technical problem. The argument is not persuasive. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of improving transaction fraud detection (see at least [0001]-[0004] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., improving transaction fraud detection, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 16-18, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, the claimed inventions allows for analyzing transaction data to produce a fraud score for a transaction. The Specification at [0001]-[0004] describe an improvement to fraud detection, and states: “Accordingly, it is desirable to have a system and/or method that is able to evaluate both past and future transactions involving a payment account when processing a current payment transaction. And in those cases where a transaction is initially authorized for payment but later found to be fraudulent through subsequent transactions, the transaction is able to be declined post-authorization and the fraud is prevented.” The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to detecting fraud in transactions, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice of mitigating risk and a commercial and legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 18-19, that the claims integrate a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, the claims recite the computing system comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory in communication with the at least one processor, the at least one processor programmed to perform claim functions; at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein the computer-executable instructions when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform claim functions; electronic message; electronically transmit; store, in a data register within the at least one memory, an electronic data record such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on page 19 regarding a purported improvement to technology, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0001]-[0004], describing an improvement to transaction fraud detection, and stating “Accordingly, it is desirable to have a system and/or method that is able to evaluate both past and future transactions involving a payment account when processing a current payment transaction. And in those cases where a transaction is initially authorized for payment but later found to be fraudulent through subsequent transactions, the transaction is able to be declined post-authorization and the fraud is prevented.”
Applicant’s reliance upon Example 47, claim 3, on pages 19-20 of the Remarks, is misplaced. As an initial matter, with respect to USPTO Examples, the Examiner analyzes the claims under the two part framework under Alice/Mayo. The Examples provided in Office Guidance are hypothetical and intended to be illustrative only. While some of the fact patterns in the examples draw from U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, the examples do not carry the weight of court decisions. Claim 3 in hypothetical Example 47 were found to be eligible because the claim reflected an improvement “in the technical field of network intrusion. detection. Steps (d)-(f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step (d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f).
Turning to the instant application, the claims are not addressing a problem technical in nature, but are an improvement to a business process i.e., improving transaction fraud detection. The Examiner finds no parallel between the Applicant’s claims and the hypothetical, patent-eligible claim 3 described in Example 47.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 21, that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize an abstract idea, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. In response to the argument, the Examiner notes, “While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The instant application is reviewed within the framework of the Revised Guidance which specifies and particularizes the Mayo/Alice framework.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 21-22 regarding the guidance from the August 4, 2025 Memo and the Precedential ARP Decision, in response to these remarks the Examiner notes that each claim was given the full and proper analysis under the test set forth by the Supreme Court and the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 22-23, that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea and represent unconventional technical operations performed by a computing system that are not well-understood, routine, or convention, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of the claim include the computing system comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory in communication with the at least one processor, the at least one processor programmed to perform claim functions; at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein the computer-executable instructions when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform claim functions; electronic message; electronically transmit; store, in a data register within the at least one memory, an electronic data record. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer merely to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to a system (claim 1), a method (claim 10), and an apparatus (claim 19). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 10, and 19 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, in part, a system, a method, and an apparatus of organizing human activity. Using the limitations in claim 1 to illustrate, the claim recites a computing system for applying post-authorization modeling tools to a payment transaction for enhancing a decision intelligence (DI) score: build, using a velocity engine, a pre-authorization model using first historical transaction data, the pre-authorization model configured to analyze backward velocities; build, using the velocity engine, a post-authorization model using historical transaction data, the post-authorization model configured to analyze forward velocities; receive an authorization message for a current transaction including current transaction data; extract, from the current transaction data, at least an account identifier identifying an account used to initiate the current transaction, and a merchant identifier identifying a merchant with whom the current transaction was initiated; input into the pre-authorization model the extracted account identifier and merchant identifier of the current transaction data and backward velocities for the current transaction to output an initial DI score, wherein the current transaction includes a transaction identifier; transmit the initial DI score to the merchant, the initial DI score useable by the merchant to authorize the current transaction, authorize the current transaction; generate a data record including the transaction identifier stored in association with the DI score and the backward velocities for the current transaction; continuously monitor a data feed for a predefined period of time after the authorization of the current transaction to detect any post-authorization transactions initiated using the same account identifier; update the data record for the transaction identifier to be stored in association with forward velocities for any post-authorization transactions received during the predefined period of time; store the forward velocities for each post-authorization transaction of the post-authorization transactions received during the predefined period of time in a transaction feature snapshot buffer for scoring of the initial DI score; in response to the predefined period of time expiring, retrieve the forward velocities for each post-authorization transaction of the post-authorization transactions received during the predefined period of time from the transaction feature snapshot buffer, and execute the post-authorization model to generate, as a rescored initial DI score, an enhanced DI score for the current transaction by inputting the retrieved forward velocities for each post-authorization transaction of the post-authorization transactions received during the predefined period of time into the post-authorization model; and transmit the enhanced DI score to the merchant within a time lag period between the authorization of the current transaction and a subsequent prospective fulfillment associated with the current transaction to enable the merchant to, based on the enhanced DI score, reanalyze the authorization of the current transaction within the time lag period and prior to any actual fulfillment.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The Specification at [0001]-[0004] describes improving transaction fraud detection. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for analyzing transaction data to produce a fraud score for a transaction, which is a fundamental economic principle or practice of mitigating risk and a commercial and legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of a processor, memory, and data register do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of the computing system comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory in communication with the at least one processor, the at least one processor programmed to perform claim functions; at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein the computer-executable instructions when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform claim functions; electronic message; electronically transmit; store, in a data register within the at least one memory, an electronic data record are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of building models, receiving a message, inputting into a model, authorizing a transaction, storing data, monitoring data, and transmitting a fraud score) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/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 in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim 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. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11916917 B2 (“Naumann”) discloses pre-authentication access request screening. A server computer may receive a request for access to a resource comprising access data. The server computer may transmit, to an authentication computer, an authentication request message comprising at least a subset of the access data and receive an authentication response message comprising authentication data. The server computer may determine an access score based on the authentication data. Alternatively, the server computer may determine the access score based on the access data without using/receiving authorization data. The server computer may generate an access indicator based on the access score. The server computer may prepare and transmit an authorization request message comprising the access indicator to an authorization computer. The authorization computer may approve or decline the access to the resource based on the access indicator.
US 20230252116 A1 (“Siddens”) discloses a security evaluation computer receiving access data from a user device of a user during an access request. The security evaluation computer analyzes the access data using authentication rules that each specify one of a plurality of authentication protocols for authenticating the user or the user device. At least one of the authentication rules specifies a security level flag for when no authentication is to be performed. The security evaluation computer triggers a first authentication rule corresponding to a first authentication protocol of the plurality of authentication protocols and implements the first authentication protocol. The security evaluation computer sends an authorization request message to an authorization server in a manner consistent with the first authentication protocol and then receive an authorization response message. The security evaluation computer analyzes, using authorization rules, the access data and the authorization response message to determine whether to complete the access request.
US 20240281812 A1 (“Kushner”) discloses performing cross-institution analysis of data, including analysis of transaction data occurring across multiple financial institutions. In one example, this disclosure describes a method that includes receiving a first set of transaction data associated with accounts at the first entity; receiving a second set of transaction data associated with accounts at the second entity; identifying transaction data associated with an account holder having a first account at the first entity and a second account at the second entity, wherein the transaction data associated with the account holder includes information about transactions occurring on the first account and information about transactions occurring on the second account; assessing a likelihood of fraud having occurred on at least one of the first account or the second account; and performing an action.
US 20210312451 A1 (“Allbright”) discloses classifying incoming payment transactions. A fraud classification computing system includes a historical transaction database for storing a plurality of transaction records associated with a respective plurality of historical transactions. The fraud classification computing system receives a current transaction request message associated with a current payment transaction. The fraud classification computing system applies a multi-class fraud prediction model to the current transaction request message to generate scores indicating a relative likelihood that the current payment transaction is each of a plurality of fraudulent transaction types. The fraud classification computing system identifies a most likely transaction classification identifier and generates a transaction classification message for the current payment transaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM 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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights