CTNF 18/951,636 CTNF 81839 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Non-Final office action is in response to the application filed on November 18, 2024 and the response to the Restriction/Election requirement filed on May 21, 2026. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-13 and 20 in the reply filed on May 21, 2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention I , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 21, 2026 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-13 and 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 20. Claim 1 recites the limitations of segregating, by a server , (i) a plurality of payment modes into a plurality of payment mode clusters and (ii) a plurality of merchants into a plurality of merchant clusters, based on first historical transaction data; generating, by the server , a collaborative filtering (CF) matrix based on the plurality of payment mode clusters, the plurality of merchant clusters, and second historical transaction data, wherein each cell of the CF matrix is associated with a corresponding payment mode cluster of the plurality of payment mode clusters and a corresponding merchant cluster of the plurality of merchant clusters; determining, by the server , a CF score for each cell of the CF matrix; creating, by the server , a plurality of CF feature values for each cell of the CF matrix based on a corresponding CF score and the second historical transaction data; and training, by the server , a risk score machine-learning (ML) model based on the created plurality of CF feature values and a plurality of non-CF feature values, wherein the risk score ML model is operable to classify a transaction request as one of a fraudulent transaction request or a legitimate transaction request based on the training. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity / mathematical concepts. Training a model that is operable to classify a transaction request as one of a fraudulent transaction request or a legitimate transaction request based on the training recites a fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions, mathematical relationships. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions, mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” / “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The server and risk score machine learning model in Claim 1 and memory configured to store a risk score machine-learning model and processing circuitry in Claim 20 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The collaborative filtering matrix in Claims 1 and 20 appears to be just software. Claim 20 is 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 server and risk score machine learning model in Claim 1 and memory configured to store a risk score machine-learning model and processing circuitry in Claim 20 and collaborative filtering matrix in Claims 1 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 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. [0149-0152] 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. In addition, performing the judicial exception steps using IRL 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). 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 and 20 are not patent eligible. (St ep 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more ) Dependent claims 2-13 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 20 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity / Mathematical Concepts and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2 and 3 further include a clustering ML model without adding significantly more; Claims 4 and 6 further detail the CF matrix; Claims 5, 8, 12, and 13 further detail the payment modes; Claim 7 further defines the CF score; Claims 9-11 further define the historical transactions. 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 2-13 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-13 and 20 are not patent-eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 4-6, 8, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub. 2020/0279288 (Song ‘288) in view of U.S. PGPub. 2021/0089884 (Macready et al. ‘884) . Re Claim 1: Song ‘288 discloses a method, comprising: segregating, by a server, (i) a plurality of payment modes into a plurality of payment mode clusters and (ii) a plurality of merchants into a plurality of merchant clusters, based on first historical transaction data (paragraphs [0023, 0041, 0045]); generating, by the server, a collaborative filtering (CF) matrix based on the plurality of payment mode clusters (paragraphs [0059, 0062]), the plurality of merchant clusters, and second historical transaction data, wherein the CF matrix is associated with a corresponding payment mode cluster of the plurality of payment mode clusters and a corresponding merchant cluster of the plurality of merchant clusters (paragraphs [0059, 0062]); determining, by the server, a CF score for the CF matrix (paragraphs [0039, 0046, 0062]); creating, by the server, a plurality of CF feature values for the CF matrix based on a corresponding CF score and the second historical transaction data (paragraphs [0045, 0062]); and training, by the server, a risk score machine-learning (ML) model based on the created plurality of CF feature values and a plurality of non-CF feature values, wherein the risk score ML model is operable to classify a transaction request as one of a fraudulent transaction request or a legitimate transaction request based on the training (abstract; paragraphs [0046, 0059, 0062, 0072]). Song ‘288 discloses the method substantially as claimed with the exception of requiring wherein each cell of the CF matrix is associated with a corresponding payment mode cluster of the plurality of payment mode clusters and a corresponding merchant cluster of the plurality of merchant clusters; determining, by the server, a CF score for each cell of the CF matrix; creating, by the server, a plurality of CF feature values for each cell of the CF matrix. Macready et al. ‘884 disclose the use of values stored in rows and columns associated with values for merchants and payments, and each having a value and a plurality of feature values (abstract; paragraphs [0019-0024, 0162]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of Song ‘288, in view of the teachings of Macready et al. ‘884, to include defined values stored in rows and columns each having a plurality of values for the basic reason of combining known techniques to yield the predictable result of a more robust fraud detection method. Re Claim 4: Song ‘288 in view of Macready et al. ‘884 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including further comprising storing, by the server, the plurality of CF feature values associated with each cell of the CF matrix in a memory (Macready et al. ‘884: abstract; paragraphs [0019-0024, 0162]). Re Claim 5: Song ‘288 in view of Macready et al. ‘884 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that each payment mode cluster of the plurality of payment mode clusters includes a set of similar payment modes of the plurality of payment modes and each merchant cluster of the plurality of merchant clusters includes a set of similar merchants of the plurality of merchants (Song ‘288: paragraphs [0023, 0036]). Re Claim 6: Song ‘288 in view of Macready et al. ‘884 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that each cell of the CF matrix is indicative of a number of transactions between the corresponding payment mode cluster of the plurality of payment mode clusters and the corresponding merchant cluster of the plurality of merchant clusters (Song ‘288: [paragraph [0062]). Re Claim 8: Song ‘288 in view of Macready et al. ‘884 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the plurality of payment modes and the plurality of merchants are associated with a geographical location (Song ‘288: Figure 8; paragraphs [0035, 0045, 0046, 0068]). Re Claim 13: Song ‘288 in view of Macready et al. ‘884 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that each payment mode of the plurality of payment modes corresponds to one of a payment card, a digital wallet, or a virtual payment address (Song ‘288: paragraph [0042]). Re Claim 20: System 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 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References C-E cited on PTO-892 have been included to illustrate the field of invention at the time of filing . 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 6/11/26 /LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/951,636 Page 2 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/951,636 Page 3 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/951,636 Page 4 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/951,636 Page 5 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/951,636 Page 6 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/951,636 Page 7 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/951,636 Page 8 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/951,636 Page 9 Art Unit: 3619 Application/Control Number: 18/951,636 Page 10 Art Unit: 3619
Prosecution Insights