DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 5/26/2026.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1-4, 11-14, and 18 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered in this office action.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant argues that the specific, concrete approach in these additional elements provides a combination of steps that (a) improves the technical field of online real-time payment processing and (b) uses the combination of steps in a meaningful way that is not generally linking to a technological environment. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims amount to merely an abstract idea of determining whether a sender is pre-approved for a transaction. The abstract idea does fall under certain methods of organizing human activity because they capture business relations and sales activities. The additional elements, which Applicant considers the three determining steps (pg.12 of the Arguments of Remarks) are not correct since these three determining steps can be performed mentally by a human. The first determining step is just looking at letters and comparing for similarity; the second determining step is just looking at numbers and comparing for similarity; and the third step somehow comes up with an overall similarity measurement, which is rather broad. Additionally, the “fuzzy logic” is simply a computer using code to perform the abovesaid determining steps. Hence, the rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting
Double patenting is maintained due to the fact that the scope of claim 1 of the instant application is still broader than and fully encompasses the species claimed in claim 1 of Patent US12045824B2.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. US12045824B2 (S System and method for simplifying fraud detection in real-time payment transactions from trusted accounts). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claim 1 of the instant application is broader than and fully encompasses the species claimed in claim 1 of Patent US12045824B2, in which they have common limitations and the same inventive entity. The narrower scope of claim 1 of the Patent No. US12045824B2 anticipates the broader scope of claim 1 of the instant application because a species always anticipates a genus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove or add the additional limitations in the patents/co-pending applications above to result in the instant claims.
Claim 1 of the Instant application
Claim 1 of Patent No. US12045824B2
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions, that when run on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions, that when run on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform:
receiving, through an electronic network, a payment authorization from a sender financial institution and on behalf of a sender;
receiving a payment authorization, through a network, from a sender financial institution, wherein:
the payment authorization comprises a payment amount, a recipient account identifier for a recipient account, and sender information associated with a sender for the payment authorization;
the recipient account is maintained by a recipient financial institution;
obtaining a sender status of the sender based on sender information of the sender associated with the payment authorization, comprising:
obtaining, in real-time after receiving the payment authorization, a sender status based on the sender information, comprising:
using fuzzy logic to determine an associated sender record of one or more sender records in a preapproved sender database that matches the sender information based on a respective overall similarity measurement between the sender information and one or more of the one or more sender records, comprising:
Determining, via a linguistic interpreter of the fuzzy logic, first respective similarity measurements between non-numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records;
determining, via a linguistic interpreter of the fuzzy logic, first respective similarity measurements between corresponding non-numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more of the one or more sender records;
Determining, via a mathematical module of the fuzzy logic, second respective similarity measurements between numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records;
determining, via a mathematical module of the fuzzy logic, second respective similarity measurements between corresponding numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more of the one or more sender records;
determining, via the fuzzy logic, the overall similarity measurement for one of the one or more sender records based at least on the first respective similarity measurements and the second respective similarity measurements;
determining, via the fuzzy logic, the respective overall similarity measurement for the one or more of the one or more sender records based on the first respective similarity measurements and the second respective similarity measurements for the one or more of the one or more sender records; and when the associated sender record matching the sender information is found, determining that the sender status is preauthorized;
when the sender status is preauthorized:
instructing, through the electronic network, a recipient financial institution to bypass a transaction fraud detection mechanism associated with the sender;
when the sender status is preauthorized, instructing, through the network and in real-time after obtaining the sender status, the recipient financial institution to bypass a transaction fraud detection mechanism associated with the sender; and
instructing, through the electronic network, the recipient financial institution to post a payment amount to a recipient account at the recipient financial institution.
instructing, through the network, the recipient financial institution to post the payment amount to the recipient account in real-time.
determining, using fuzzy logic, that a sender record of one or more sender records of preapproved senders is associated with the sender when an overall similarity measurement is not less than a predetermined threshold score, such that the send status is preauthorized, comprising:
4. wherein using the fuzzy logic to determine the associated sender record further comprises:
when the respective overall similarity measurement between the sender information and a candidate sender record of the one or more of the one or more sender records is not less than a predetermined threshold score:
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 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, Claims 1-10 are drawn to system claims; claim 11-20 are drawn to method claims, which are all within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process).
Independent claim 1 recites: (claims 11 being similar in scope):
Claim 1:
receiving, through an electronic network, a payment authorization from a sender financial institution and on behalf of a sender;
obtaining a sender status of the sender based on sender information of the sender associated with the payment authorization, comprising:
determining, using fuzzy logic, that a sender record of one or more sender records of preapproved senders is associated with the sender when an overall similarity measurement is not less than a predetermined threshold score, such that the send status is preauthorized, comprising:
determining, via linguistic interpreter of the fuzzy logic, first respective similarity measurements between non-numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records;
determining, via a mathematical module of the fuzzy logic, second respective similarity measurements between numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records; and
determining, via the fuzzy logic, the overall similarity measurement for one of the one or more sender records based at least on the first respective similarity measurements and the second respective similarity measurements;
when the sender status of the sender is preauthorized:
instructing, through the electronic network, a recipient financial institution to bypass a transaction fraud detection mechanism associated with the sender; and
instructing, through the electronic network, the recipient financial institution to post a payment amount to a recipient account at the recipient financial institution.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers; 1) fundamental economic principles by mitigating risk; 2) commercial interaction by business relations under the Certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea, recited above, includes: receiving a payment authorization from a sender financial institution and on behalf of a sender; obtaining a sender status of the sender based on sender information of the sender associated with the payment authorization; instructing a recipient financial institution to bypass a transaction fraud detection mechanism associated with the sender; instructing the recipient financial institution to post a payment amount to a recipient account at the recipient financial institution. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations: 1) fundamental economic principles by mitigating risk; 2) commercial interaction by business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the Certain methods of organizing human activity, grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, claim 1 also recites the “mental process” abstract idea, which can be performed in the human mind. The abstract ideas are: determining first respective similarity measurements between non-numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records; determining second respective similarity measurements between numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records; and determining the overall similarity measurement for one of the one or more sender records based at least on the first respective similarity measurements and the second respective similarity measurements. The first determining step is just looking at letters and comparing for similarity; the second determining step is just looking at numbers and comparing for similarity; and the third step somehow comes up with an overall similarity measurement. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The recited computing elements (claim 1: one or more processors; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media) are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing element performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, since it amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional positive element(s): “fuzzy logic” is simply a computer using code to perform the three abovesaid determining steps. Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements are simply linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
Claims 2-10 are further directed to additional abstract ideas because the steps performed are simply narrowing the scope of the abstract idea of claim 1 since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. For example, claim 2 further describes determining sender status being not preauthorized if there is no sender record; claim 3 describes associating sender record to sender public key; claim 4 on determining what would happen when an overall similarity measurement between sender and the sender record is not less than a predetermined threshold score; claim 5 describes transmitting the overall similarity measurement of the sender to the recipient financial institution; claim 6 describes instructing the recipient financial institution to bypass the transaction fraud detection mechanism; claim 7 on determining a recipient verification score and reporting an error message if it is below a predetermined threshold score; claim 8 describes the user record maintained by the system; claim 9 on determining the recipient verification score comprises determining a similarity measurement between the recipient information and the user record; claim 10 describes receiving a recipient verification result based on the recipient account identifier and the recipient information, etc; which all of the limitation are narrowing the steps performed in claim 1.
The other dependent claims, claim 12-20 are similar in scope to the claim 2-10 are also rejected for the same reasons provided above.
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter Over the Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 and 11 each contains allowable subject matter. As per claim 1, 1) Kimberg et al. (US20160247134A1); 2) Mossoba et al. (US10521837B1); 3) Mandloi (US20200219103A1); 4) Kumar (US11055727B1), fail to teach or suggest the ordered combination of “determining, via a linguistic interpreter of the fuzzy logic, first respective similarity measurements between corresponding non-numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more of the one or more sender records; determining, via a mathematical module of the fuzzy logic, second respective similarity measurements between corresponding numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more of the one or more sender records; and determining, via the fuzzy logic, the respective overall similarity measurement for one of the one or more sender records based on the first respective similarity measurements and the second respective similarity measurements.” Therefore, the cited prior arts, taken alone or in combination, fail to explicitly teach each and every limitation of claim 1 or 11. The missing claimed elements/features cannot be found in a reasonable number of reference(s). Yet even if the missing claimed elements/features were found in a reasonable number of references, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not have been motivated to include these missing elements in an embodiment. Hence, the claims are allowable over the cited prior art. Dependent claims are also allowable for the same reason(s) described above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL, necessitated by amendment. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm 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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 8/5/2026
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights