DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 04/15/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-17, and 19-20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 10-11 have been canceled.
Claim 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1-9, 12-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 12-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The previous 112(b) rejection and 101 rejection for the claims 15-20 being directed towards signals per se have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 with respect to the claims rejected for being directed towards an ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues #1:
MPEP 2106.04(II) notes the claim should be considered "as a whole" when performing the analysis under Prong I of the Step 2A analysis. Applicant respectfully submits that when Claim 1 is viewed "as a whole", Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract concept, but rather a control process for a processing network, not to a mental process or a disembodied "fraud/risk decision." The claim recites receiving an event request having a predefined processing path, generating a different event having a different processing path, marking an authorization request message with an identifier of that different processing path, and then transmitting the authorization request message through the different processing path to cause the different event to execute. These are steps that cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, with regards to the human mind/pen and paper test, as an initial matter, just because an idea cannot be performed with a pen and paper or in the human mind does not mean it’s not directed towards an abstract idea and the Examiner did not rely on grouping the claims into the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for the analysis. Furthermore Examiners are directed to continue to use the Mayo Alice framework (as laid out in MPEP 2106 which incorporates Steps 2A and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG) as guidance in evaluating subject matter eligibility, which the Examiner has properly applied.
Applicant argues #2:
Furthermore, the output is used to drive specific downstream processing actions including selecting a different processing path, modifying a message field, and transmitting the modified authorization request message through that different path to cause execution. This changes the behavior of the network processing itself, not just information being displayed.
Thus, Applicant contends that the inquiry into the abstraction of Applicant's claims should end at this first prong as Applicant's claims do not fall into any of the enumerated groupings and therefore cannot be abstract.
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as shown in the rejection below, actions such as selecting a different processing path, modifying a message field, and transmitting the modified authorization request message through that different path to cause execution describe fundamental economic practices and therefor falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas.
Applicant argues #3:
"A claim is not 'directed to' a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will 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 judicial exception." Page 13 of the 2019 Guidance.
Applicant notes that the claims impose meaningful, practical, and succinct operations that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by applying the AI output to change a downstream processing path in a processing network. The claim recites generating an alternate event and causing its execution through a different processing path by marking an authorization request message and transmitting it through that path. The process is used to prevent a fraudulent or risky event from being executed, by replacing it with something that is not fraudulent or risky.
The dependent claims also recites a step that prevents execution of an original processing path and substitutes a different event that is processed via a different processing path. This is a technical improvement in transaction network operation because it enables safer execution through alternate verification nodes and alternate routing logic.
Thus, Applicant's numerous claim limitations would clearly integrate an alleged abstract idea into a practical application that does not monopolize a judicial exception and are thereby patent eligible because the practical application of Applicant's claims allow for a real-world benefit through computing systems.
While applicant submits that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea as discussed above, should the Office nonetheless maintain its position that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, Applicant respectfully submits that under the second step (2B) of Alice the ordered combination of elements in the independent claims are sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite elements which integrate the claims into a practical application and thus the claims recite eligible subject matter under Section 101.
Examiners response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, preventing execution of an original processing path and substitutes a different event that is processed via a different processing path is not a technical but rather further describing abstract concepts being applied with generic computer components. As per, MPEP 2106.05(f) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);. With respect to the AI model, this is akin to using a generic machine learning technique in a particular environment, with no inventive concept, as opposed to disclosing “a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts,” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016), or “a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process,” Koninklijke, 942 F.3d at 1150, the use of AI in the instant application does not provide an inventive concept or significantly more. The only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment, which has been found by the Courts to be ineligible (see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025). It is noted “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 has been reviewed using the Subject Matter Eligibility test as laid out in MPEP 2106, and found to be directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more, therefor this argument is not persuasive.
For the reasons above, the 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 3, 10, and 17, the clause “wherein an AI agent performs an action related to the different event” is interpreted as an intended use/field of use of the different event. The intended use in the claim merely states the result of the limitation in the claim and adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 26 USPQ2d 1010 (Fed. Cir 1993); Griffin v. Bertina, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 22); Amazon.com Inc. v. Bamesandnoble.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1747 (Fed. Cir. 21). Hence the intended use limitations are not given patentable weight.
In general, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The following are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim:
statements of intended use or field of use,
"adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
"wherein" clauses, or
"whereby" clauses.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. See also MPEP § 2111.04.
The rejections given below are interpreted in light of 35 U.S.C. § 112, rejections and the claim interpretation discussed above.
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 1-9, 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – Claims 1-9, 12-22 pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards an apparatus, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and method.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) - The idea is recited in the claims, in part, by:
receiving a request to execute an event comprising a first event attribute and a predefined processing path through a processing network;
obtaining previous event content associated with the event;
executing a model on the first event attribute and the previous event content to predict a modification trigger;
determine a different event which includes a different event attribute than the first event attribute and a different processing path through the processing network, based on the modification trigger;
mark a field of an authorization request message of the different event with an identifier of the different processing path, and
transmit the authorization request message through the different processing path to cause execution of the different event.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk) but for the recitation of generic computer components in that the model is utilized to analyze a request for a first event to determine a modification trigger to alter an authorization request based on the trigger to a different event, and as shown in fig. 4C and described in [0123], the different event suggested is lesser risk event, such as having an original request of a wire transfer for $20,000, holding the request, and only allowing the lesser risky option of a $4,000 wire transfer (the different event) to be accepted as shown in fig. 4C. Therefor the claims are directed towards mitigating risk. That is other than reciting an Artificial Intelligence Model, a database, an apparatus comprising a processor and memory, and computer-readable storage medium and in the dependent claims a graphical user interface of a computing device, and storage queue (which is defined in [0127] as a temporary storage mechanism) nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than fundamental economic principles or practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of an Artificial Intelligence Model, a database, an apparatus comprising a processor and memory, and computer-readable storage medium and in the dependent claims a graphical user interface of a computing device, and storage queue (which is defined in [0127] as a temporary storage mechanism). The an Artificial Intelligence Model, a database, an apparatus comprising a processor and memory, and computer-readable storage medium and in the dependent claims a graphical user interface of a computing device, and storage queue (which is defined in [0127] as a temporary storage mechanism) are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the computer environment. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 20106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements of an Artificial Intelligence Model, a database, an apparatus comprising a processor and memory, and computer-readable storage medium to perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment does not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see 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), and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26, 110 USPQ2d 1984-1985 (2014) (such as creating and maintaining "shadow accounts", "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions");, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);, 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."), are well-understood routine and conventional, similar to the instant application claims which recites sending and receiving data, and storing and retrieving data from the database to analyze a request to determine a modification trigger and alter an authorization request based on the trigger to different event, which as shown in fig. 4C and described in [0123], the different event suggested is lesser risk event, such as having an original request of a wire transfer for $20,000, holding the request, and only allowing the lesser risky option of a $4,000 wire transfer (the different event) to be accepted as shown in fig. 4C. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. For instance, claims 2-7, and 21-22 are all steps that fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas, but for further defining the computer environment in which the idea is being limited to by reciting the additional elements of a graphical user interface of a computing device, and storage queue (which is defined in [0127] as a temporary storage mechanism), however, similar to as discussed above, this is generally linking the use of the judicial exemption to a particular technical computing environment using generic computer components. The Dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koren, et al. (US Patent Application 20220327504), “Koren” in view of Dobson, et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20170140385), “Dobson”.
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Koren discloses:
An apparatus, comprising: [0009]
a memory; and [0009]
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to: [0009]
receive a request to execute an event comprising a first event attribute and a predefined processing path through a processing network, [0036], [0049], wherein the Examiner interprets payment modality to be akin to the event path, At 204, process 200 continues which capture of payment information, including all the details associated with the transactions (e.g., originating location and/or IP address, merchant locations and/or IP address, amount, product, payment modality, payment brand, user persona information, etc.)… In various embodiments, routing of transactions can include operations to select specific payment modalities (e.g., credit card, credit card brand, payment service, gift card, digital wallet service (including, for example, APPLEPAY, GOOGLEPAY, KLARNA, AFTERPAY, etc.), coin processor, etc.) that improve the likelihood of a successful valid transaction. In further embodiments, the machine models can be trained on any one more of the following factors: historical statistics (e.g., authorization rate on the issuer level and acquirer level on specific same risk level/segment); history of the specific user (e.g., related to acquirer used, payment method used and to successful completion of 3DS); purchase intent (in some embodiments the system is configured to analyze each transaction for a user (e.g., single user, group of users, similar users, etc.) as at least part of determining a payment intent, which enables the system to recognize a new transaction attempt (e.g., when there was a failed attempt for the same intent), and treat the new transaction accordingly (e.g., re-route, new payment method, etc.) to avoid another failure);
obtain previous event content associated with the event from a database, [0047], [0090] In further embodiments, the machine models can be trained on any one more of the following factors: historical statistics (e.g., authorization rate on the issuer level and acquirer level on specific same risk level/segment); history of the specific user (e.g., related to acquirer used, payment method used and to successful completion of 3DS); purchase intent (in some embodiments the system is configured to analyze each transaction for a user (e.g., single user, group of users, similar users, etc.) as at least part of determining a payment intent, which enables the system to recognize a new transaction attempt (e.g., when there was a failed attempt for the same intent), and treat the new transaction accordingly (e.g., re-route, new payment method, etc.) to avoid another failure);… For example, a user history database 1952 can store user history information for specific users. In another example, the user history database 1952 can store transaction information and associate that transaction information with user personas. User personas can be used instead of specific customers or users for similarity analysis and/or behavioral analysis associated with the user attempting a current transaction.
execute an artificial intelligence model on the first event attribute and the previous event content to predict a modification trigger, [0008], [0073], [0154] As shown, the system can include a risk engine 1902 that provides a risk decision based on processing rules and or ML model(s). In some embodiments, the ML model is configured to evaluate transaction details, the behavior of the user in the web/mobile application (e.g., navigation patterns, where did the user arrived at the site, speed of movement, etc.), the connections of the user (e.g., location, vpn/proxy, etc.), linked transaction information, and users that previously bought on the same website, or were previously evaluated by the system. In some examples, the risk engine is configured to output a decision that includes an approved or denied status, risk level, and can include reasons associated with the evaluation. For embodiments employing the ML model, the model is trained on tagged transactions that indicate what is legitimate, what is fraudulent and reported as fraudulent. Once trained the model can produce as output for a given transaction a decision: approve/decline, risk level, and optionally output reasons… in some embodiments, the models that automatically handle processing can be configured to determine that one or more or any combination of the following options will result in the greatest likelihood of a successful retry: automatic retry using another processor/acquirer, automatic retry using 3DS (e.g., invoking 3DS when frictionless (e.g., does not require the consumer's participation)), automatic retry using 3DS including presenting enhanced security requirements to the consumer, provide recommendations to the user that can include trying a specific payment method, resolve with its bank via SMS/phone (e.g., automatically generate text for user approval), identify a lower amount likely to be successful, among other options.
determine a different event which includes a different event attribute than the first event attribute of the event and a different processing path through the processing network, based on the modification trigger, [0008], [0154] In further aspects, intelligent routing can also include automating/intelligently determining how to handle declined transactions. For example, machine learning models are trained on transaction operations and historical information, for example, to output the best way to handle a transaction in case it is declined in order to provide the highest probability that the transaction will be recovered and processed successfully. In some embodiments, the models that automatically handle processing can be configured to determine that one or more or any combination of the following options will result in the greatest likelihood of a successful retry: automatic retry using another processor/acquirer, automatic retry using 3DS (e.g., invoking 3DS when frictionless (e.g., does not require the consumer's participation)), automatic retry using 3DS including presenting enhanced security requirements to the consumer, provide recommendations to the user that can include trying a specific payment method, resolve with its bank via SMS/phone (e.g., automatically generate text for user approval), identify a lower amount likely to be successful, among other options. Of note, 3DS is one of various security enhancement protocols/measures (e.g., deciding to add CVV information or not to downstream processing) that can be invoked or accessed during payment processing. Further embodiments include intelligent models executed by the system that predict which enhancement can or will be used, and leverage each of the security enhancements to deliver the greatest likelihood of a successful transaction for valid requests…The models can be trained so that the prediction on security implementation can also be based on the specific context of a transaction (e.g., valid or fraudulent, low risk, high risk, low value, high value, origination, timing, history, user characteristic, etc.). In various examples, any data collected on a given transaction can be used as part of modeling what security is expected to be invoked and what effect that security will have on the execution of the operation.
transmit the authorization request message through the different processing path to cause execution of the different event. [0008], [0050], [0154], wherein based on the settings, akin to the default automated action, a different route or payment method or suggested lower transaction amount can be used, akin to the different event, In some settings, payment processing participants can set weights or values on certain pathways (e.g., least expensive, shortest network traversal, least number of third party systems, minimizes additional security/computational burden, success rate, commitment, etc.) which are then used to select the optimal routes, which can include additional factors beyond likelihood of success. Analysis at 210 can also include historic analysis and/or processing rules that impact the determination of an optimized route (including, for example, likelihood of success, processing burden, etc.) or that are implemented to weight selection of specific routes, which can be used to permit new dynamic routing selections…. If a candidate route is not optimal for returning a successful transaction 212NO, process 200 continues at 214 with dynamic routing or re-routing of the transactions to deliver the highest likelihood of success, improved efficiency, etc., and processing can be completed at 216. If a candidate route for the transaction is optimal 216YES, the processing for the transaction is completed at 216. According to various embodiments, the steps of process 200 can be executed in different order and/or various steps omitted or consolidated for execution
Koren does not expressly disclose the following, Dobson, however discloses:
mark a field of an authorization request message of the different event with an identifier of the different processing path, [0077] In step 614, the received transaction message may be modified by the processing device of the processing server by replacing the institution identifier stored in the second data element of the received transaction message with an alternative identifier associated with the identified secondary financial institution. In step 616, the modified transaction message may be electronically transmitted by the transmitting device of the processing server to the acquiring institution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Koren with the ability to change the identifiers so the transaction will be approve as taught by Dobson, doing further aides in enabling genuine transactions that would otherwise be declined be successfully processed [0004].
As per claims 2, 9, and 16 Koren discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to prevent execution of the event (see fig. 2, [0050] wherein the flowchart shows the transaction applying the rules to determine if an optimal route is selected, here the event is halted at the determination step 212)
generate a queue entry that corresponds to the event, mark the queue entry with an identifier of the different event, and add the queue entry to a storage queue. [0047], [0095], [0132] According to some embodiments, the system assigns the different transactions or the same attempts in the same transaction identify, a unique intent ID that is later used by the system for reports and understanding the success per intent. By determining successful operations based on intent, the system is able to optimize subsequent routing, processing, and communication based on the entire path (including re-execution) and not just the success per transaction that conventional systems are limited to. The system is able to optimize across and report on the overall customer journey and experience (e.g., succeed immediately vs attempted multiple time until success, or multiple time failure, among other options)… In other embodiments, the system may also maintain a database of intent history for various users at 1956. As discussed herein, intent history allows the system to connect various failed transaction attempts with successful operations and learn what adjustments or changes enabled success. In some embodiments, the intent history can include linkages to a last system decision and the results of the selected approach.
As per claims 6, 13, and 20, Koren discloses:
wherein the processor is configured generate a model feedback record which includes the event, the different event, and an indication of whether the different event includes activity risk, and [0094-0095], [0134] In further embodiments, the system can also include a database to specify constraints on optimization decisions and or processing routes. For example, the system may maintain the constraints database at 1960. The constraints can include jurisdictional rules, participant-based rules, value-based rules, among other options… In other embodiments, the system may also maintain a database of intent history for various users at 1956. As discussed herein, intent history allows the system to connect various failed transaction attempts with successful operations and learn what adjustments or changes enabled success. In some embodiments, the intent history can include linkages to a last system decision and the results of the selected approach….In another example, the system identifies a matching user intent (see below), when the system receives a decline indicated from the bank. The operation was routed with a 3DS2 security protocol. Historic information/modeling shows that this bank prefers 3DS security protocol (99.9%). As long as the transaction meets other requirements from risk perspective, the system can determine that the optimal path routes the transaction without 3DS, instead of the prior 3DS2 protocol. If the operation is successful under the predicted route (e.g., with 3DS compared to using 3DS2), the data is used by the system as a unique feedback loop (e.g., with a greater weight over population based models or rules for execution). In some examples, the system can employ confirmed routes in order to quickly teach the system that, for example, the issuer might have changed their known behavior. Deviations from expected predictions can likewise trigger feedback and weighting to enable the system to dynamically and quickly shift optimization decisions on transaction routing.
retrain the AI model with the model feedback record. [0134] In another example, the system identifies a matching user intent (see below), when the system receives a decline indicated from the bank. The operation was routed with a 3DS2 security protocol. Historic information/modeling shows that this bank prefers 3DS security protocol (99.9%). As long as the transaction meets other requirements from risk perspective, the system can determine that the optimal path routes the transaction without 3DS, instead of the prior 3DS2 protocol. If the operation is successful under the predicted route (e.g., with 3DS compared to using 3DS2), the data is used by the system as a unique feedback loop (e.g., with a greater weight over population based models or rules for execution). In some examples, the system can employ confirmed routes in order to quickly teach the system that, for example, the issuer might have changed their known behavior. Deviations from expected predictions can likewise trigger feedback and weighting to enable the system to dynamically and quickly shift optimization decisions on transaction routing.
As per claims 7, and 14, Koren discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to output a description of the different event with a visual indicator via a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computing device. [0008] In further aspects, intelligent routing can also include automating/intelligently determining how to handle declined transactions. For example, machine learning models are trained on transaction operations and historical information, for example, to output the best way to handle a transaction in case it is declined in order to provide the highest probability that the transaction will be recovered and processed successfully. In some embodiments, the models that automatically handle processing can be configured to determine that one or more or any combination of the following options will result in the greatest likelihood of a successful retry: automatic retry using another processor/acquirer, automatic retry using 3DS (e.g., invoking 3DS when frictionless (e.g., does not require the consumer's participation)), automatic retry using 3DS including presenting enhanced security requirements to the consumer, provide recommendations to the user that can include trying a specific payment method, resolve with its bank via SMS/phone (e.g., automatically generate text for user approval), identify a lower amount likely to be successful, among other options. Of note, 3DS is one of various security enhancement protocols/measures (e.g., deciding to add CVV information or not to downstream processing) that can be invoked or accessed during payment processing.
As per claims 8, 9, 13, and 14, claims 8, 13, and 14 recite substantially similar limitations to those found in claims 1, 2, 6, and 7, respectively. Therefor claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under the same art and rationale as claims 1, 2, 6, and 7. Furthermore, Koren discloses a method [0003].
As per claims 15, 16, and 20, claims 15, 16 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations to those found in claims 1, 2 and 6, respectively. Therefor claims 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under the same art and rationale as claims 1, 2, and 6. Furthermore, Koren discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage media [0105].
Claims 3, 4, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koren, et al. (US Patent Application 20220327504), “Koren” in view of Dobson, et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20170140385), “Dobson” in view of Dahlgren, et al. (US Patent 12505447), “Dahlgren”.
As per claims 3, and 17, Koren discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to:
output the authorization request message to confirm the different event on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computing device, [0008] In some embodiments, the models that automatically handle processing can be configured to determine that one or more or any combination of the following options will result in the greatest likelihood of a successful retry: automatic retry using another processor/acquirer, automatic retry using 3DS (e.g., invoking 3DS when frictionless (e.g., does not require the consumer's participation)), automatic retry using 3DS including presenting enhanced security requirements to the consumer, provide recommendations to the user that can include trying a specific payment method, resolve with its bank via SMS/phone (e.g., automatically generate text for user approval), identify a lower amount likely to be successful, among other options. Of note, 3DS is one of various security enhancement protocols/measures (e.g., deciding to add CVV information or not to downstream processing) that can be invoked or accessed during payment processing.
Koren does not expressly disclose the following, Dahlgren, et al., However discloses:
wherein an AI agent performs an action related to the different event. Examiner notes, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has applied art, however, as noted in the claim interpretation this limitation does not carry patentable weight, Col. 8 lines 4-18, The user engagement module 153, for example, functions as a data collection interface, and also communicates with the user 130 over various remote or digital communication channels. The communication channels include, for example, text message, email or instant massage via a mobile/desktop app with link to the data collection component; voice call to the user's number on record; chatbot operating within the service provider's online/mobile application; push notification via online/mobile application—which can be set for the next time the user accesses the application. The message presented to the user during this initial engagement, for example, provides, context information such as, user name, date and time of transaction, amount of transaction related to the alerted case. This will reassure the user that the information is genuine and legitimate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Koren with the ability to utilize chat-bots to engage the user as taught by Dahlgren doing so furthers aides in presenting the user with information related to the transaction triggered the alert (col. 7 line 45-col. 8 line 18).
As per claims 4, and 18 Koren discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to identify an additional processing node for processing the different event based on a processing model of the processing network. [0051] By optimally re-routing the transactions through merchant 304, processor 306, payment schema 308, and issuer 310 intelligent routing systems can reduce the number of failed valid transactions thus improving the operation of the payment ecosystem over conventional implementation. In some examples, improved operation targets and implements reduced network bandwidth utilization (e.g., based on limiting re-transmission need and/or eliminating re-tried communication), elimination of enhanced security protocols and associated processing, dynamic routing based on routing node criteria, etc. In further embodiments, ensuring valid transactions are processed correctly in the first instance reduces the impact on the processing ecosystem, for example, based on the impact imposed by re-presenting valid transactions, among other options.
As per claims 17 and 18, claims 17 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations to those found in claims 3 and 4, respectively. Therefor claims 17 and 18 are rejected under the same art and rationale as claims 3 and 4. Furthermore, Koren discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage media [0105].
Claims 5, 12, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koren, et al. (US Patent Application 20220327504), “Koren” in view of Dobson, et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20170140385), “Dobson” in view of Moshyedi (US Patent Application Publication 20220400107), “Moshyedi”.
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, Koren does not expressly disclose the following, Moshyedi, however discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to determine successful execution of the different event, and in response, determine a remainder of the first event attribute based on the different event attribute and execute another event for the remainder of the first event attribute after a predetermined period of time from the successful execution. [0047] In some implementations, based on generating the SVC number, the SVC system may modify an account balance, or a credit limit, associated with the accounts linked with the SVC. For example, generating the SVC number may enable the SVC to be used to complete one or more transactions (e.g., the transaction(s) linked with the SVC and/or transactions up to an amount limit associated with the SVC). Therefore, to ensure that the accounts linked with the SVC do not incur charges such that the account would not be capable of accepting an amount of a transaction completed using with the SVC, the SVC system may reduce an available balance or a credit limit of the accounts linked with the SVC by a portion of the maximum amount that can be charged using the SVC. For example, the SVC system may reduce a spending limit associated with a first account (e.g., “Account A”) by a first portion (e.g., 50%) of an amount limit associated with the SVC number (e.g., “$100.00) indicated by the one or more parameters. Therefore, the SVC system may reduce a spending limit associated with the first account by $50.00 (e.g., 50% of $100.00), as $50.00 is the maximum amount that could be allocated to the first account based on one or more transactions completed using the SVC. Similarly, the SVC system may reduce a spending limit associated with a second account (e.g., “Account B”) by a second portion (e.g., 50%) of the amount limit associated with the SVC number (e.g., “$100.00) indicated by the one or more parameters… In some implementations, after the SVC is expired or no longer active (e.g., after an amount of time indicated by the time limit), the SVC system may remove a balance of any unused credit from the accounts linked with the SVC number. In other words, when generating the SVC number, the SVC system may place a hold on each account linked with the SVC number for a maximum amount that could be allocated to each account based on one or more transactions completed using the SVC. After the SVC is expired or no longer active, the SVC system may remove or release the holds on the accounts linked with the SVC number.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Koren with the ability to release unused funds associated with a virtual card once it has expired as taught by Moshyedi doing so furthers allows holds to be removed on unused funds and released to the account [0047].
As per claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations to those found in claim 5. Therefor claim 12 is rejected under the same art and rationale as claim 5. Furthermore, Koren discloses a method [0003].
As per claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations to those found in claim 5. Therefor claim 19 is rejected under the same art and rationale as claim 5. Furthermore, Koren discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage media [0105].
As per claim 21, Koren does not expressly disclose the following, Moshyedi, however discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to determine a remainder of the first event attribute based on the different event attribute, and execute another event for the remainder after successful execution of the different event. [0047] In some implementations, based on generating the SVC number, the SVC system may modify an account balance, or a credit limit, associated with the accounts linked with the SVC. For example, generating the SVC number may enable the SVC to be used to complete one or more transactions (e.g., the transaction(s) linked with the SVC and/or transactions up to an amount limit associated with the SVC). Therefore, to ensure that the accounts linked with the SVC do not incur charges such that the account would not be capable of accepting an amount of a transaction completed using with the SVC, the SVC system may reduce an available balance or a credit limit of the accounts linked with the SVC by a portion of the maximum amount that can be charged using the SVC. For example, the SVC system may reduce a spending limit associated with a first account (e.g., “Account A”) by a first portion (e.g., 50%) of an amount limit associated with the SVC number (e.g., “$100.00) indicated by the one or more parameters. Therefore, the SVC system may reduce a spending limit associated with the first account by $50.00 (e.g., 50% of $100.00), as $50.00 is the maximum amount that could be allocated to the first account based on one or more transactions completed using the SVC. Similarly, the SVC system may reduce a spending limit associated with a second account (e.g., “Account B”) by a second portion (e.g., 50%) of the amount limit associated with the SVC number (e.g., “$100.00) indicated by the one or more parameters… In some implementations, after the SVC is expired or no longer active (e.g., after an amount of time indicated by the time limit), the SVC system may remove a balance of any unused credit from the accounts linked with the SVC number. In other words, when generating the SVC number, the SVC system may place a hold on each account linked with the SVC number for a maximum amount that could be allocated to each account based on one or more transactions completed using the SVC. After the SVC is expired or no longer active, the SVC system may remove or release the holds on the accounts linked with the SVC number.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Koren with the ability to release unused funds associated with a virtual card once it has expired as taught by Moshyedi doing so furthers allows holds to be removed on unused funds and released to the account [0047].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koren, et al. (US Patent Application 20220327504), “Koren” in view of Dobson, et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20170140385), “Dobson” in view of Huesch, et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20150254672), “Huesch”.
As per claim 22, Koren does not expressly disclose the following, Huesch, however discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to generate the different processing path to include a different sequence of internet protocol (IP) addresses than the predefined processing path. [0032], [0137], [0237-0238] At steps 8b, 8c and 8d, the merchant online processing system 1 may transmit a message to the user system U1 to trigger the browser to reload its payment page within an iFrame, the content of which may be provided by the trusted intermediary system and which may correspond to the content of a digital wallet payment page. The message sent from the user system U1 may include a return merchant URL, which may be passed from the merchant online processing system through the user system U1 to the trusted intermediary system 4 in message 8c, where it may be temporarily stored for use later in the process… As will be appreciated from the foregoing, communications between the various entities comprising the payment system 10 proceed via a data communications network such as the Internet. Each of the entities of the payment system 10 (the issuing bank system 2; the trusted intermediary system 4; the payment processing and settlement system; and the online merchant systems) may be identifiable via a network identifier such as an Internet Protocol (IP) address or other suitable identifier. Suitable data security protocols may be used in relation to the connections between the various entities in the payment system 10, for example Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), encrypted web services and the like… In some embodiments, the interface may use an online banking protocol. In some embodiments, the protocol may be, or may be based on, the Financial Transaction Services (FinTS) protocol.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Koren with the ability to communicate via IP addresses as taught Huesch, doing so further allows the system to utilize internet protocol communications [0237-0238].
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 GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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 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.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights