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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the central processor" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if applicant is attempting to set forth a new hardware element or if applicant is truncating the previously set forth, “central processor application”. In the interest of compact prosecution the application will be examined as if the limitation is, --the central processor application--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 11 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 20. Claim 11 recites the limitations of collecting, by a central processor application from a merchant processor, transaction profile information associated with an online transaction; analyzing, by the central processor application, the transaction profile information; determining, by the central processor application based on the analysis of the transaction profile information, a security assessment of the online transaction, wherein the security assessment indicates a measure of security associated with the online transaction; generating, by the central processor application, a fraud responsibility transfer request; transmitting the fraud responsibility transfer request to the merchant processor; receiving, from the merchant processor, an acceptance response comprising an agreement to transfer a fraud responsibility to the central processor (application); and performing, based on the acceptance response, a checkout process for the online transaction, wherein the merchant processor shifts the fraud responsibility to the central processor application.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Performing a checkout process based on an acceptance response recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The merchant processor in Claims 1, 11, and 20 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. It is noted that the device comprising a processor in Claim 20 is only recited in the preamble and not positively set forth in the body of the claim. The central processor application in Claims 1, 11, and 20 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite merchant processor in Claims 1, 11, and 20 and the central processor application in Claims 1, 11, and 20. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0130-0136] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 11, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 11, and 20 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claim 2 further includes software that collects information without adding significantly more; Claims 3-5, 9, and 19 further details what is in the transaction profile; Claims 6-8 and 12-16 further detail the security assessment levels and what occurs at each level without adding significantly more; Claims 10 further includes that the analysis of the transaction profile comprises a machine learning algorithm however, performing the judicial exception steps using ML merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims (see MPEP 2105(h)); Claims 17 and 18 further detail that the central processing application is associated with one or more account providers. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-10 and 12-19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References A-E and foreign patent documents N and O have been included on PTO-892 as disclosing various aspects of the instant claims. Reference A (U.S. PGPub. 20150348039) discloses shifting liability from the merchant to the card issuer. References B and C (U.S. PGPub. 2017/0091773 & 2019/0073647), are directed to using a customer profile and transaction data to determine a level of risk and issue a fraud warning. Reference D (U.S. PGPub. 2021/0279731) discloses the use of machine learning in fraud determination analysis. Reference E (U.S. Pat. 11,790,078) discloses the use of machine learning to determine an authentication score and using authentication challenges to verify user identities. References N and O (RU 2648594 & CN 102782711) disclose various methods of customer authentication and use of security protocols in online transactions. However, the references do not disclose the recited limitations of the central processor generating a fraud responsibility transfer request that is transferred to the merchant, receiving an acceptance from the merchant to transfer the fraud responsibility to the central processor application, and the performing a checkout operation based on that acceptance to shift the fraud responsibility from the merchant to the central processor application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
3/20/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619