CTNF 18/953,039 CTNF 76041 DETAILED ACTION 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. Election/Restrictions 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (Claims 22-29 and 30-37) in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search encompassed the subject matter of claim 7 . This is not found persuasive because newly presented method claims 22-29 and system claims 30-39. Again, the newly provided claims of Group II (i.e., see claims 22-29 and claims 30-39) that were not previously presented in the prior office action are related to the apparatus claim of Group I (i.e., see claims 7 and 21) as combination sub-combination where the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the sub-combination-a processing device with features previously described in the office action dated 01/23/2026 but the sub-combination has separate utility such as automation of various decisions related to product recommendation, or other patterns in human behavior in fields of health, transportation, retail, etc., Thus the inventions may have a materially different mode of operation and/or function . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Thus claims 7 and 21 are withdrawn from consideration, and claims 22-29 and 30-37 are being examined herein. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 22-29 and 30-37 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. Relative Term 07-34-03 AIA The term “ normally used ” in claim s 22 and 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ normally used ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear exactly what connotates payment technology that is “normally used” by the card holder because it is unclear as to what the Applicant considers standard usage of a particular type or types of different technologies being used . 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. 5. Claims 22-29 and 30-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 6. In the instant case, claim 22 is directed to a process or method for providing real-time fraud detection that is performed by claim 30 which is directed to a system of the same. 7. Claim 22 is directed to the abstract idea of “fraud detection” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity, being related to managing transaction payments by mitigating risk of financial lost due to transactions made based upon criminal deception for personal gain, as is in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Claim 22 recites, “ receiving, …, a transaction authorization request message for a transaction at a merchant …, wherein the transaction authorization request message comprises transaction information associated with the transaction, wherein the transaction information comprises payment card details of the payment card associated with a cardholder; determining that the merchant is subscribed to a confidence scoring service …; prior to routing the transaction authorization request message …, routing the transaction information …; generating, …, a confidence score for the transaction based at least in part on an age factor calculation, a technology factor calculation, a location ranking calculation, and a historical fraud factor, wherein generating the confidence score for the transaction comprises: retrieving …information about the cardholder …; retrieving, …, a birth year of the cardholder, where the birth year of the cardholder indicates an age above a threshold; obtaining the age factor calculation including a ratio of the year of the transaction relative to the birth year of the cardholder; obtaining the technology factor calculation …; the year of the transaction authorization request…; and a number reflecting one or more different types of payment technologies normally used by the cardholder; obtaining the location ranking calculation based on latitude and longitude coordinates for a location associated with the transaction authorization request and a number of fraudulent transactions associated with that location; and obtaining the historical fraud factor, representing a number of fraud experiences historically experienced by the cardholder; and appending the confidence score to the transaction authorization request message; sending the transaction authorization request message appended with the confidence score to an issuer associated with the payment card details; and receiving, from the issuer, a decline to the transaction authorization request based in part on the confidence score due in part to the age factor calculation.” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). 8. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as “payment card system network”, “payment card” and “network host site”, are recited at a high level of generality [see Applicant’s Specification ¶0065-¶0071] represent the use of a computer system as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to the acts of using rules to perform fraud detection. 9. When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of fraud detection using computer technology (e.g.. a payment card system interchange network). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). 10. Hence, claim 22 is not patent eligible. 11. Regarding claims 23 and 31, under the broadest reasonable interpretation can be considered receiving processing and storing data. 12. Regarding claims 24-28 and 32-37, under the broadest reasonable interpretation can be considered performing repetitive transactions and/or receiving processing and storing data. 13. Claim 30 is directed to the abstract idea of “fraud detection” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity, being related to managing transaction payments by mitigating risk of financial lost due to transactions made based upon criminal deception for personal gain, as is in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). 14. Claim 30 recites, “… receive, …, a transaction authorization request message for a transaction at a merchant …, wherein the transaction authorization request message comprises transaction information associated with the transaction, wherein the transaction information comprises payment card details of the payment card associated with a cardholder; determine that the merchant is subscribed to a confidence scoring service …; prior to routing the transaction authorization request message to an issuer, route the transaction information …; generate, …, a confidence score for the transaction based at least in part on an age factor calculation, a technology factor calculation, a location ranking calculation, and a historical fraud factor, wherein generating the confidence score for the transaction comprises: retrieve … the payment card details… comprises information about the cardholder associated with the payment card; retrieve…, a birth year of the cardholder, where the birth year of the cardholder indicates an age above a threshold; obtain the age factor calculation including a ratio of the year of the transaction relative to the birth year of the cardholder; obtain the technology factor calculation based on data regarding a technology being used for the transaction authorization request; the year of the transaction authorization request; data regarding a payment technology being used; and a number reflecting one or more different types of payment technologies normally used by the cardholder; obtain the location ranking calculation based on latitude and longitude coordinates for a location associated with the transaction authorization request and a number of fraudulent transactions associated with that location; and obtain the historical fraud factor, representing a number of fraud experiences historically experienced by the cardholder; and append the confidence score to the transaction authorization request message; send the transaction authorization request message appended with the confidence score to an issuer associated with the payment card details; and receive, from the issuer, a decline to the transaction authorization request based in part on the confidence score due in part to the age factor calculation. ” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). 15. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as “a processing unit”, “a memory” and “a payment card system interchange network”, are recited at a high level of generality [see Applicant’s Specification ¶0035-¶0039 and ¶0041-¶0044] represent the use of a computer system as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to the acts of using rules to perform fraud detection. 16. When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of fraud detection using computer technology (e.g.. a payment card system interchange network). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). 17. Hence, claim 30 is not patent eligible. Conclusion 07-96 AIA 18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. GOPINATHAN (WO 94/06103) Burke et al (US 20220383323) Fraud Detection systems and methods Misra et al (US 2022031983) discloses system, method and computer program product for real-time automated teller machine fraud detection 19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex. 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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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. DANIEL S. FELTEN Examiner Art Unit 3692 /DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/953,039 Page 2 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/953,039 Page 3 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/953,039 Page 4 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/953,039 Page 5 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/953,039 Page 6 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/953,039 Page 7 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/953,039 Page 8 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/953,039 Page 9 Art Unit: 3692
Prosecution Insights