DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the first amendment to non-final filed on July 27, 2026.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1–15 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1–15 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the information network” in lines 31–32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the information network” has been interpreted as the previously recited “secure blockchain network”. Claims 7–10 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 6.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the information network” in lines 32–33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the information network” has been interpreted as the previously recited “secure blockchain network”. Claims 12–15 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1–10 are directed to a process (“A method”), and claim 11–15 is directed to a machine (“A system”). Thus, claims 1–15 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–15, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
receiving, at a first bank system, a report of a fraud event involving an account;
receiving, by the first bank system, confirmation of the fraud event;
incorporating, by the first bank system, the confirmation of the fraud event to first bank internal fraud . . .; and
publishing, by the first bank system, an alert to first bank . . . for the first bank . . ., the first bank . . . participating as the first bank . . . with a plurality of second banks, wherein the second banks participate . . . as second bank . . .;
wherein the plurality of . . . second banks . . . are configured to receive the alert; and
wherein a second bank system for each of the plurality of second banks is configured to receive confirmation of the fraud, to add the confirmation of the fraud event to second bank internal fraud . . ., and to apply the second bank internal fraud . . . to incoming transactions.
Claims 1–5, therefore, recite detecting and tracking bank account fraud, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk.
For claim 11, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
. . . an administrator . . . configured to maintain a whitelist of a plurality of bank . . . that may exchange information . . .;
. . . a first bank internal system . . . configured to receive a report of a fraudulent transaction with an account, to confirm the report of the fraudulent transaction, and to add the confirmation the information to first bank internal fraud . . .; and
. . . record and publish . . ., an alert based on the confirmation of the fraudulent transaction . . .; and
a second bank . . . that contains transactional, customer and PII; and
. . . replicate, . . . the alert published . . ., to receive, upon a determination . . . that the second bank . . . is authorized, a . . . key . . ., to investigate, via the second bank internal system, the report of the fraudulent transaction, to confirm, via the second bank internal system, the fraudulent transaction, and to add, via the second bank internal system, the confirmation to second bank internal fraud . . ..
Claims 6–15, therefore, also recite detecting and tracking bank account fraud, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“controls”, “node”, “secure blockchain network”, “network of a plurality of nodes”, “decryption keys”, “application business logic”, “application programming interface (API)”, “access keys”, “key vault”, “blockchain node”, “permissioned shared ledger”, “private database”, and “encrypted”). These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to send, receive, store, and secure the various fraud information and determinations. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Again, specification paragraphs Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Independent claims 6 is rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent system claim 11. There are no additional elements recited in these claims other than the generic technology and computer parts discussed above (“node”, “decryption keys”, “application business logic”, “application programming interface (API)”, “access keys”, “secure blockchain network”, “key vault”, “controls”, “blockchain node”, “permissioned shared ledger”, “private database”, and “encrypted”). The only difference is that the features of claim 11 are implemented by a method in claim 6. Thus, because the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, claim 6 is also not patent eligible. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Dependent claims 2–5, 7–10, and 12–15 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the fraud tracking recited in claims 1, 6, and 11 by further specifying the information included in the fraud report—“compromise type”, “type of fraud”, and “relationship and trust fraud, product and service fraud, social engineering fraud, fraudulent activation fraud, and/or impersonated authorized party fraud”.
For claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the fraud tracking recited in claims 1, 6, and 11 by further specifying information included in the alert—“compromise type and identifying information” and “email address, an IP address, a user agent hash, and/or an account identifier”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 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 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayaraghavan, U.S. Patent App. No. 2023/0098747 (“Vijayaraghavan”) in view of Hunter et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2019/0188652 (“Hunter”) and Clower et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0270496 (“Clower”).
For claim 1, Vijayaraghavan teaches:
A method, comprising (¶ 63: example method):
receiving, . . . a report of a fraud event involving an account (¶ 54: payment transaction potential fraud dispute received); . . .
incorporating, . . . the confirmation of the fraud event to first bank internal fraud controls (¶ 55: fraud information stored on blockchain interface server); and
publishing, . . . an alert to a first bank node for the first bank on a secure blockchain network (¶ 55–56: fraud information published to blockchain network) . . .;
wherein a second bank system for each of the plurality of second banks is configured to receive confirmation of the fraud, to add the confirmation of the fraud event to second bank internal fraud controls (¶ 55: fraud information stored on blockchain interface server), and to apply the second bank internal fraud controls to incoming transactions (¶ 55: stored fraud information checked for initiated transactions).
Vijayaraghavan does not teach: at a first bank system; receiving, by the first bank system confirmation of the fraud event; the first bank system participating as the first bank node in the secure blockchain network with a plurality of second banks, wherein the second banks participate in the secure blockchain network as second bank nodes; wherein the plurality of second bank nodes for the plurality of second banks on the secure blockchain are configured to receive the alert; and wherein a second bank system for each of the plurality of second banks is configured to receive confirmation of the fraud.
Hunter, however, teaches:
at a first bank system (Fig. 3, ¶ 33, 39: bank node including internal system communicating application business logic via API);
the first bank system participating as the first bank node in the secure blockchain network with a plurality of second banks, wherein the second banks participate in the secure blockchain network as second bank nodes (Fig. 3, ¶ 33, 6: first and second bank nodes in blockchain network); and
wherein the plurality of second bank nodes for the plurality of second banks on the secure blockchain are configured to receive the alert (Fig. 3, ¶ 33, 39: bank node including internal system communicating application business logic via API; ¶ 33, 36, 37: blockchain node supporting permissioned shared ledger communicating published inquiry information over channel).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified fraud detection in Vijayaraghavan by adding the bank node system from Hunter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating the communication of fraud information between banks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Hunter (¶ 3: current system requires excessive time and multiple entities to exchange information; ¶ 5: invention provides distributed information system) and desired by Vijayaraghavan (¶ 3–4: need for system to communicate information and resolve disputes between parties efficiently).
The combination of Vijayaraghavan and Hunter does not teach: receiving, . . . confirmation of the fraud event; and wherein a second bank system for each of the plurality of second banks is configured to receive confirmation of the fraud.
Clower, however, teaches:
receiving, . . . confirmation of the fraud event (¶ 111: real-time fraud alert notifications received by bank system); and
wherein a second bank system for each of the plurality of second banks is configured to receive confirmation of the fraud (¶ 111: real-time fraud alert notifications received by bank system).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified fraud detection in Vijayaraghavan and the bank node system in Hunter by adding the fraud notification from Clower. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating an integrated fraud alert system—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Clower (¶ 9–10: challenge for banks to provide expedient fraud notification; ¶ 20–22: invention provides fraud alert system) and desired by Vijayaraghavan (¶ 3–4: need for system to communicate information and resolve disputes between parties efficiently). Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower are all related in part to bank transaction fraud detection, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more secure by combining these references together.
For claim 2, Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Vijayaraghavan further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the report of the fraud event comprises an indicator of a compromise type (¶ 73, 116: fraud types included in data).
For claim 3, Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower teach all the limitations of claim 2 above, and Vijayaraghavan further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the report of the compromise type comprises fraudulent activation fraud and/or impersonated authorized party fraud (¶ 73: fraud types include counterfeit fraud or theft).
For claim 4, Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower teach all the limitations of claim 2 above, and Vijayaraghavan further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the alert comprises the compromise type and identifying information for a fraudulent party (¶ 40, 55, 73: information on liable party as well as fraud type).
For claim 5, Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower teach all the limitations of claim 4 above, and Vijayaraghavan further teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein the identifying information comprises an impersonating email address, an IP address, a user agent hash, and/or an account identifier (¶ 50: email and IP address; ¶ 80: account ID).
For claim 6, Vijayaraghavan teaches:
A method, comprising (¶ 63: example method): . . .
the first bank internal system is configured to . . . add the confirmation to first bank internal fraud controls (¶ 55: fraud information stored on blockchain interface server); and
. . . the first blockchain node is configured to record and publish to the permissioned shared ledger, an alert based on the confirmation of the fraudulent transaction that is encrypted by the secure blockchain network (¶ 55–56: fraud information published to blockchain network and stored on blockchain interface server; ¶ 122: information encrypted); and
. . . to investigate, via the second bank internal system, the report of the fraudulent transaction, to confirm, via the second bank internal system, the fraudulent transaction, and to add, via the second bank internal system, the confirmation to second bank internal fraud controls (¶ 54: payment transaction investigated for possible fraud; ¶ 55: fraud information stored on blockchain interface server).
Vijayaraghavan does not teach: provisioning, to a secure blockchain network, an administrator node configured to maintain a whitelist of a plurality of bank nodes that may exchange information, and to send decryption keys to authorized bank nodes; provisioning a first bank node of the plurality of bank nodes that is communicatively coupled to a first in-bank system to the secure blockchain network,, the first bank node comprising: a first bank internal system that communicates with application business logic via an application programming interface (API), the API requiring one or more access keys for access to the secure blockchain network and the one or more access keys are secured in a key vault; receive a report of a fraudulent transaction with an account, to confirm the report of the fraudulent transaction; a first blockchain node in the secure blockchain network that comprises a permissioned shared ledger and a private database that contains transactional, customer and personally identifiable information (PII); provisioning a second bank node of the plurality of bank nodes that is communicatively coupled to a second bank internal system to the secure blockchain network, the second bank node comprising: a private database that contains transactional, customer and PII ; and a second blockchain node that supports the permissioned shared ledger, the second bank node configured to replicate, via the second blockchain node over a direct communication channel, the alert published by the first blockchain node, to receive, upon a determination by the information network that the second bank node is authorized, a previously generated decryption key for the encrypted alert .
Hunter, however, teaches:
provisioning, to a secure blockchain network, an administrator node configured to maintain a whitelist of a plurality of bank nodes that may exchange information, and to send decryption keys to authorized bank nodes (¶ 29: administrator node controlling permissions maintains whitelist of nodes; Fig. 3, ¶ 6, 33, 39: bank nodes);
provisioning a first bank node of the plurality of bank nodes that is communicatively coupled to a first in-bank system to the secure blockchain network,, the first bank node comprising: a first bank internal system that communicates with application business logic via an application programming interface (API) (Fig. 3, ¶ 33, 39: bank node including internal system communicating application business logic via API), the API requiring one or more access keys for access to the secure blockchain network and the one or more access keys are secured in a key vault (¶ 35: node access keys secured in key-vault, for the API);
a first blockchain node in the secure blockchain network that comprises a permissioned shared ledger and a private database that contains transactional, customer and personally identifiable information (PII) (¶ 5: blockchain supporting permissioned shared ledger and private database containing transactional, customer, and personally identifiable information);
provisioning a second bank node of the plurality of bank nodes that is communicatively coupled to a second bank internal system to the secure blockchain network, the second bank node comprising: a private database that contains transactional, customer and PII (Fig. 3, ¶ 33, 39: bank node including internal system communicating application business logic via API); and
a second blockchain node that supports the permissioned shared ledger, the second bank node configured to replicate, via the second blockchain node over a direct communication channel, the alert published by the first blockchain node (¶ 33, 36, 37: blockchain node supporting permissioned shared ledger communicating published inquiry information over channel), to receive, upon a determination by the information network that the second bank node is authorized, a previously generated decryption key for the encrypted alert (¶ 46–47: decryption keys sent to authorized nodes).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified fraud detection in Vijayaraghavan by adding the bank node system from Hunter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating the communication of fraud information between banks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Hunter (¶ 3: current system requires excessive time and multiple entities to exchange information; ¶ 5: invention provides distributed information system) and desired by Vijayaraghavan (¶ 3–4: need for system to communicate information and resolve disputes between parties efficiently).
The combination of Vijayaraghavan and Hunter does not teach: receive a report of a fraudulent transaction with an account, to confirm the report of the fraudulent transaction.
Clower, however, teaches:
receive a report of a fraudulent transaction with an account, to confirm the report of the fraudulent transaction (¶ 111: real-time fraud alert notifications received by bank system).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified fraud detection in Vijayaraghavan and the bank node system in Hunter by adding the fraud notification from Clower. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating an integrated fraud alert system—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Clower (¶ 9–10: challenge for banks to provide expedient fraud notification; ¶ 20–22: invention provides fraud alert system) and desired by Vijayaraghavan (¶ 3–4: need for system to communicate information and resolve disputes between parties efficiently). Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower are all related in part to bank transaction fraud detection, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more secure by combining these references together.
For claim 7, Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower teach all the limitations of claim 6 above, and Vijayaraghavan further teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein the report of the fraudulent transaction comprises an indicator of a compromise type (¶ 73, 116: fraud types included in data).
For claim 8, Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower teach all the limitations of claim 7 above, and Vijayaraghavan further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the report of the compromise type comprises a type of fraud (¶ 73, 116: fraud types included in data).
For claim 9, Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower teach all the limitations of claim 7 above, and Vijayaraghavan further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the alert comprises the compromise type and identifying information for a fraudulent party (¶ 40, 55, 73: information on liable party as well as fraud type).
For claim 10, Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Vijayaraghavan further teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein the identifying information comprises an impersonating email address, an IP address, a user agent hash, and/or an account identifier (¶ 50: email and IP address; ¶ 80: account ID).
For claim 11, Vijayaraghavan teaches:
A system, comprising (¶ 46: example system): . . .
the first bank internal system is configured to . . . add the confirmation to first bank internal fraud controls (¶ 54: payment transaction investigated for possible fraud); and
. . . the first blockchain node is configured to record and publish to the permissioned shared ledger, an alert based on the confirmation of the fraudulent transaction that is encrypted by the secure blockchain network (¶ 55–56: fraud information published to blockchain network and stored on blockchain interface server; ¶ 122: information encrypted); and
. . . to investigate, via the second bank internal system, the report of the fraudulent transaction, to confirm, via the second bank internal system, the fraudulent transaction, and to add, via the second bank internal system, the confirmation to second bank internal fraud controls (¶ 54: payment transaction investigated for possible fraud; ¶ 55: fraud information stored on blockchain interface server).
Vijayaraghavan does not teach: an administrator node configured to maintain a whitelist of a plurality of bank nodes in a secure blockchain network of a plurality of bank nodes that may exchange information and to send decryption keys to authorized bank nodes; the secure blockchain network that is configured to establish a direct communication channel between two bank nodes in the secure blockchain network; a first bank node of the plurality of bank nodes that is communicatively coupled to a first in-bank system, wherein the first bank node comprises: a first bank internal system that communicates with application business logic via an application programming interface (API), the API requiring one or more access keys for access to the secure blockchain network and the one or more access keys are secured in a key vault; receive a report of a fraudulent transaction with an account, to confirm the report of the fraudulent transaction; a first blockchain node in the secure blockchain network that is comprises a permissioned shared ledger and a private database that contains transactional, customer and personally identifiable information (PII); a second bank node of the plurality of bank nodes communicatively coupled to a second bank internal system, the second bank node comprising: a private database that contains transactional, customer and PII; and a second blockchain node that supports the permissioned shared ledger, the second bank node configured to replicate, via the second blockchain node over the direct communication channel, the alert published by the first blockchain node, to receive, upon a determination by the information network that the second bank node is authorized, a previously generated decryption key for the encrypted alert.
Hunter, however, teaches:
an administrator node configured to maintain a whitelist of a plurality of bank nodes in a secure blockchain network of a plurality of bank nodes that may exchange information and to send decryption keys to authorized bank nodes (¶ 29: administrator node controlling permissions maintains whitelist of nodes; Fig. 3, ¶ 6, 33, 39: bank nodes);
the secure blockchain network that is configured to establish a direct communication channel between two bank nodes in the secure blockchain network (¶ 53: electronic communication channels for connecting multiple nodes in network; Fig. 3, ¶ 6, 33, 39: bank nodes);
a first bank node of the plurality of bank nodes that is communicatively coupled to a first in-bank system, wherein the first bank node comprises: a first bank internal system that communicates with application business logic via an application programming interface (API) (Fig. 3, ¶ 33, 39: bank node including internal system communicating application business logic via API), the API requiring one or more access keys for access to the secure blockchain network and the one or more access keys are secured in a key vault (¶ 35: node access keys secured in key-vault, for the API);
a first blockchain node in the secure blockchain network that is comprises a permissioned shared ledger and a private database that contains transactional, customer and personally identifiable information (PII) (¶ 5: blockchain supporting permissioned shared ledger and private database containing transactional, customer, and personally identifiable information);
a second bank node of the plurality of bank nodes communicatively coupled to a second bank internal system, the second bank node comprising: a private database that contains transactional, customer and PII (Fig. 3, ¶ 33, 39: bank node including internal system communicating application business logic via API); and
a second blockchain node that supports the permissioned shared ledger, the second bank node configured to replicate, via the second blockchain node over the direct communication channel, the alert published by the first blockchain node (¶ 33, 36, 37: blockchain node supporting permissioned shared ledger communicating published inquiry information over channel), to receive, upon a determination by the information network that the second bank node is authorized, a previously generated decryption key for the encrypted alert (¶ 46–47: decryption keys sent to authorized nodes).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified fraud detection in Vijayaraghavan by adding the bank node system from Hunter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating the communication of fraud information between banks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Hunter (¶ 3: current system requires excessive time and multiple entities to exchange information; ¶ 5: invention provides distributed information system) and desired by Vijayaraghavan (¶ 3–4: need for system to communicate information and resolve disputes between parties efficiently).
The combination of Vijayaraghavan and Hunter does not teach: receive a report of a fraudulent transaction with an account, to confirm the report of the fraudulent transaction.
Clower, however, teaches:
receive a report of a fraudulent transaction with an account, to confirm the report of the fraudulent transaction (¶ 111: real-time fraud alert notifications received by bank system).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified fraud detection in Vijayaraghavan and the bank node system in Hunter by adding the fraud notification from Clower. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating an integrated fraud alert system—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Clower (¶ 9–10: challenge for banks to provide expedient fraud notification; ¶ 20–22: invention provides fraud alert system) and desired by Vijayaraghavan (¶ 3–4: need for system to communicate information and resolve disputes between parties efficiently). Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower are all related in part to bank transaction fraud detection, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more secure by combining these references together.
For claim 12, Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower teach all the limitations of claim 11 above, and Vijayaraghavan further teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the report of the fraudulent transaction comprises an indicator of a compromise type (¶ 73, 116: fraud types included in data).
For claim 13, Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower teach all the limitations of claim 12 above, and Vijayaraghavan further teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein the report of the compromise type comprises relationship and trust fraud, product and service fraud, social engineering fraud, fraudulent activation fraud, and/or impersonated authorized party fraud (¶ 73: fraud types include counterfeit fraud or theft).
For claim 14, Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower teach all the limitations of claim 12 above, and Vijayaraghavan further teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein the alert comprises the compromise type and identifying information for a fraudulent party (¶ 40, 55, 73: information on liable party as well as fraud type).
For claim 15, Vijayaraghavan, Hunter, and Clower teach all the limitations of claim 14 above, and Vijayaraghavan further teaches:
The system of claim 14, wherein the identifying information comprises an impersonating email address, an IP address, a user agent hash, and/or an account identifier (¶ 50: email and IP address; ¶ 80: account ID).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite any abstract idea because they are directed to confirming fraud and then incorporating that confirmation into internal fraud controls of multiple banks on a secure blockchain system. Applicant explains that the claims therefore recite a computer-based solution rather than a method of organizing human activity because they do not recite any of the activities listed. As explained in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 above, however, the claims are directed to a commercial interaction and a fundamental economic practice because they recite detecting and tracking bank fraud. The use of a secure blockchain network of banks in the claimed invention is an implementation of this abstract idea through the use of technology, and is therefore addressed under the next steps of the analysis. Thus, claims 1–15 do recite an abstract idea.
Next, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the recite the technical improvement discussed above. Applicant explains that the claimed invention allows a second bank to improve its own operations through the confirmation of a fraud event from a first bank. This improvement cited by Applicant, however, is an improvement to the abstract idea of detecting and preventing fraud. The claims merely apply the secure blockchain and bank nodes to make this fraud detection more efficient and effective. The claims are therefore merely using the technology as a generic tool to improve the abstract idea, rather than improve the technology itself in any way. Thus, claims 1–15 do not include additional elements sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 27, 2026 with respect to claims 1–15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Vijayaraghavan (U.S. Patent App. No. 2023/0098747) fails to disclose the limitation “incorporating, . . . the confirmation of the fraud event to first bank internal fraud controls.” Applicant explains that Vijayaraghavan only refers to storing fraud records on the blockchain to resolve a dispute, and thus does not disclose incorporating fraud events into internal fraud controls to prevent future fraud, as in the claimed invention. As Applicant cites, however, Vijayaraghavan does disclose storing fraud information that is checked to potentially deny a transaction before it is initiated (¶ 55: “In such embodiments, before a transaction authorization request is initiated, a participant of the blockchain (e.g., acquirer) may check the blockchain interface server 210 for any records of fraud related to the PAN, cryptocurrency ID, or identifying information related to a party of the transaction, and then may deny the transaction (e.g., based on possibilities of fraud).”). Vijayaraghavan therefore does teach incorporating confirmation of fraud events to then apply to incoming transactions, as it is recited in the claims. Thus, as the claims are currently written, the cited references do disclose “incorporating, . . . the confirmation of the fraud event to first bank internal fraud controls.”
Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to claims 1–15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 6, and 11 and argues that the combination of Vijayaraghavan and Hunter (U.S. Patent App. No. 2019/0188652) does not disclose these additional limitations. Claims 1, 6, and 11, however, are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Vijayaraghavan in view of Hunter and Clower (U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0270496). Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6, and 11 are moot.
Applicant further argues that the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claims 1, 6, and 11, which were amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. As discussed above, however, claims 1, 6, and 11 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Vijayaraghavan in view of Hunter and Clower. Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2–5, 7–10, and 12–15 are moot.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Those prior art references are as follows:
Snyder et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0005307, discloses fraud alert messages between multiple nodes.
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 DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272–3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571–273–8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights