DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to Applicant’s response filed June 22, 2026 in which claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 18, and 20 are amended. Claim 8 is cancelled. Claim 21 is added. Thus, claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
2. 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 1-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 13 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 1 and 20.
The claims 1-7 and 9-12 are directed to a method, claims 13-19 are directed to a system and claims 20-21 are directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 13 recites : a server comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the server is configured to: receive, from a contactless card via a merchant device associated with a merchant, a cryptogram including a unique identifier of the contactless card; authenticate a user using the unique identifier; receive, from the merchant device, a first plurality of risk data associated with the user; receive, from a contactless card software development kit (SDK) embedded by a first entity, a second plurality of risk data associated with the user; receive, from a second entity, a third plurality of risk data associated with the user; identify the user; train a fraud risk machine learning model; and determine a fraud risk profile of the user, based on the fraud risk machine learning model, using the first plurality of risk data, the second plurality of risk data, and the third plurality of risk data. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), are a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, mitigating risk, and hedging). Determining a fraud risk profile of the user is a way of mitigating a risk and mitigating a risk is a Fundamental Economic Practice. The claim also recites additional elements (as shown above in italics) which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, the recited additional elements (as shown above in italics), nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 13 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a server, a processor, a memory and a merchant device result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The limitations, “receive, from a contactless card software development kit (SDK) embedded by a first entity”, and “train a fraud risk machine learning model” amounts to generic computer implementation. The specification describes the additional elements of server, a processor, a memory and a merchant device to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 5, [0063-0064]). Hence, the additional elements in the claim are generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar analysis can be extended to other independent claims 1 and 20 and hence the claims 1 and 20 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 13. In addition, claim 20 also recites a non-transitory, computer-readable medium which amounts to generic computer implementation.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, 14-19 and 21 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 6, 12, 14, 16 and 19 recite new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 1 or 13 or 20.
Claims 6, 14, 16 and 19 recite the additional elements of the website browsing data such as Internet Protocol (IP) address data, hardware details data, software details data, first party cookies, third party cookies, etc. The website browsing data, recited in the claims, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of the Short Message Service (SMS) one time password (OTP). The Short Message Service (SMS) one time password (OTP), recited in the claims, is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer implementation. Hence, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Viewing the claim limitations as a combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-7 and 9-21 are ineligible.
No Prior art
3. Applicants’ amended claims have overcome the prior art of record and Applicants’ arguments regarding the prior art of record is persuasive; therefore the current art rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed dated 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
5. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2A, Prong 1 (pages 9-12), Applicant argues that, “Claim 13 Does Not Recite an Abstract Idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as explained in the 101 analysis above, the steps of the claim, are a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, mitigating risk, and hedging). Determining a fraud risk profile of the user is a way of mitigating a risk and mitigating a risk is a Fundamental Economic Practice.
The claim also recites additional elements (as explained above in the 101 analysis) which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, the recited additional elements (as shown above in italics), nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 13 recites an abstract idea.
6. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2A, Prong 2 (pages 12-14), Applicant argues that, “Claim 13 Integrates the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amended limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. Determining fraud risk profile is a part of the abstract idea, not a technical improvement. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. The specification describes the additional elements of a server, a processor, a memory and a merchant device result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The limitations, “receive, from a contactless card software development kit (SDK) embedded by a first entity”, and “train a fraud risk machine learning model” amounts to generic computer implementation. The specification describes the additional elements of a server, a processor, a memory and a merchant device to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 5, [0063-0064]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
7. Applicant argues that (pages 15-17), “Claim 13 Includes "Significantly More".”
One of the guidelines issued by the Office to determine if the claims recite additional elements which are not well understood, routine or conventional and hence, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, is the USPTO guidelines of April 19, 2018 incorporating the Berkheimer memo (Berkheimer memo, hereinafter).
According to the Berkheimer memo,
In a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements). This option should
be used only when the examiner is certain, based upon his or her personal knowledge, that the additional elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The additional elements in the claim are a server, a processor, a memory and a merchant device. The limitations, “receive, from a contactless card software development kit (SDK) embedded by a first entity”, and “train a fraud risk machine learning model” amounts to generic computer implementation. As per the rejection above, the specification describes the additional elements to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 5, [0063-0064]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. There is no indication in Applicants’ claims that any specialized hardware or other inventive computer components are required. The fact that a general purpose computing system, suitably programmed, may be used to perform the claimed method and the fact that the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces” but merely call for performance of the claimed functions “on a set of generic computer components, satisfies the Berkheimer memo requirement that the additional elements are conventional elements (as outlined in criterion 1 of the Berkheimer memo). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Examiner Request
8. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 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 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.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
September 03, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights