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
This Final office action is in response to the application filed on October 17, 2024 and the amendments to the claims filed on March 19, 2026.
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 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 10 and product Claim 20. Claim 1 recites the limitations of receiving, by a processor, a user-based allegation of a fraudulent transaction; receiving, by the processor, merchant data pertaining to a user associated with the user- based allegation as well as a transaction underlying the user-based allegation; receiving, by the processor, issuer data pertaining to the user and the transaction; applying, by the processor, a machine learning model to the merchant data and issuer data to generate a prediction as to whether the transaction was fraudulent; providing, by the processor, a report to the user comprising one or more factors on which the prediction is based, the one or more factors based on at least one of the merchant data and the issuer data; receiving, by the processor, feedback relating to the prediction, wherein the feedback comprises one or more fraud decisions from one or more merchants; and updating, by the processor, the machine learning model using the feedback as an input.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. False fraud prevention 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 processor in Claim 1 and memory and processor in Claim 10 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. It is noted that the processor in Claim 20 is only recited in the preamble. The machine learning model in Claims 1, 10, and 20 appears to be just software. Claims 10 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 processor in Claim 1 and memory and processor in Claim 10 and a machine learning model in Claims 1, 10, 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, 10, 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. [0132-0137] 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. 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, 10, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 10, and 20 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2, 3, 16 and 17 further include the option for a user to retract their allegation; Claims 4, 5, and 11-14 further include mobile device data; Claims 6 further include third party metrics; Claims 7 and 15 further include using the prediction to approve or deny; Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 further include the use of a communication hub. 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 2-9 and 11-19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 10,832,248 (Kramme et al. ‘248) in view of U.S. PGPub. 2021/0192522 (Jameson et al. ‘522).
Re Claim 1: Kramme et al. ‘248 disclose a method for false fraud prevention, the method comprising the steps of: receiving, by a processor, a user-based allegation of a fraudulent transaction (column 5, line 50 – column 6, line 10); receiving, by the processor, merchant data pertaining to a user associated with the user-based allegation as well as a transaction underlying the user-based allegation (column 10, lines 6-29); receiving, by the processor, issuer data pertaining to the user and the transaction (column 7, lines 22-43; column 9, lines 35-50); applying, by the processor, a machine learning model to the merchant data and issuer data to generate a prediction as to whether the transaction was fraudulent (column 9, lines 35-50; column 10, lines 21-29; column 14, lines 3-32); providing, by the processor, a report to the user comprising one or more factors on which the prediction is based, the one or more factors based on at least one of the merchant data and the issuer data(column 5, line 50 – column 6, line 10; column 11, lines 13-26; column 12, lines 35-53); receiving, by the processor, feedback relating to the prediction (column 5, line 50 – column 6, line 10; column 42, line 43 – column 43, line 23); and updating, by the processor, the machine learning model using the feedback as an input (column 5, line 50 – column 6, line 10).
Kramme et al. ‘248 disclose the method substantially as claimed with the exception of including that the feedback comprises one or more fraud decisions from one or more merchants. Jameson et al. ‘522 disclose the use of a continuous feedback loop that includes merchant fraud decisions (paragraph [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the to modify the method of Kramme et al. ‘248, in view of the teachings of Jameson et al. ‘522, to include the feedback of a fraud determination from the merchants for the basic reason of combining known methods to use all available information in making a determination.
Re Claim 2: Kramme et al. ‘248 in view of Jameson et al. ‘522 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising providing, by the processor, an option for the user to retract the user-based allegation of a fraudulent transaction (Kramme et al. ‘248: column 23, lines 3-35).
Re Claim 3: Kramme et al. ‘248 in view of Jameson et al. ‘522 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the feedback on the prediction comprises a user response to the option for the user to retract the user-based allegation of a fraudulent transaction (Kramme et al. ‘248: column 35, lines 3-35).
Re Claim 4: Kramme et al. ‘248 in view of Jameson et al. ‘522 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising receiving, by the processor, mobile device data for a mobile device associated with the user (Kramme et al. ‘248: column 22, line 57 – column 23, line 13).
Re Claim 5: Kramme et al. ‘248 in view of Jameson et al. ‘522 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the merchant data includes mobile device data for a mobile device associated with the user (Kramme et al. ‘248: column 22, line 57 – column 23, line 13).
Re Claim 6: Kramme et al. ‘248 in view of Jameson et al. ‘522 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising receiving, by the processor, third party metrics data pertaining to the user (Kramme et al. ‘248: column 22, line 57 – column 23, line 13).
Re Claim 7: Kramme et al. ‘248 in view of Jameson et al. ‘522 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the user-based allegation of a fraudulent transaction is approved or denied based on the prediction as to whether the transaction was fraudulent (Kramme et al. ‘248: Figures 5 & 8).
Re Claim 8: Kramme et al. ‘248 in view of Jameson et al. ‘522 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising receiving, by the processor via a communication hub, supplemental user data from a plurality of issuers or a plurality of banks (Kramme et al. ‘248: column 22, line 36 – column 23, line 13).
Re Claim 9: Kramme et al. ‘248 in view of Jameson et al. ‘522 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising sending, via the processor, the prediction as to whether the transaction was fraudulent to the communication hub (Kramme et al. ‘248: Figure 1).
Re Claims 10, 11, 13, & 15-19: System claims 10, 11, 13, and 15-19 are substantially similar to previously rejected method claims 1-5 and 8-9, and are therefore considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale.
Re Claim 12: Kramme et al. ‘248 in view of Jameson et al. ‘522 disclose the system substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the mobile device data comprises a plurality of an internet protocol address, a geo-location, and a unique device identifier (ID) (Kramme et al. ‘248: Figure 4A).
Re Claim 14: Kramme et al. ‘248 in view of Jameson et al. ‘522 disclose the system substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the merchant data comprises a plurality of a user name, a user phone number, a user email address, a user physical address, a list of historical merchant transactions, a frequency of merchant purchases, an account age for a merchant account associated with the user, a total number of items, recurring order information, shipping information, and a merchant risk score (Kramme et al. ‘248: Figures 4A; column 31, line 7 – column 33, line 39).
Re Claim 20: Computer-readable non-transitory medium claim 20 is substantially similar to previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections of record (Remarks, pages 7-15) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (Remarks, pages 7-10). However, the claims clearly recite that they are directed to false fraud prevention which is mitigating risk and a commercial or legal interaction. Therefore, the claims are abstract.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Remarks, pages 10-13), are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, the claims only recite processor in Claim 1 and memory and processor in Claim 10 and a machine learning model in Claims 1, 10, and 20. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality 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.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims amount to significantly more citing Affinity Labs (Remarks, pages 13-15) are acknowledged. However, not all claims relating to computer technologies fall within Enfish/McRO. Where the focus of the claims is on “certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools” instead of “an improvement in computers as tools,” claims may fail step one. See, e.g.,
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
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 LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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
4/22/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights