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 application is a CON of 18/441,260 02/14/2024 PAT 12277565
18/441,260 is a CON of 17/082,664 10/28/2020 PAT 11941633
17/082,664 is a CIP of 16/562,724 09/06/2019 PAT 11468447
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Claims 21-27 are currently pending and rejected.
Claims 28-40 are withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 4, 5, 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,468,447. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claim is just the combination of parent claims.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 10, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,633. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claim is just the combination of parent claims.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 10, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,277,565. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claim is just the combination of parent claims.
Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4, 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,633. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claim is just the combination of parent claims.
Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4, 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,277,565. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claim is just the combination of parent claims.
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,633. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claim is just the combination of parent claims.
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,277,565. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claim is just the combination of parent claims.
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,468,447. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both teach removing non-fraudulent transactions outside of window of compromise.
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,633. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both teach removing non-fraudulent transactions outside of window of compromise.
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,277,565. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both teach removing non-fraudulent transactions outside of window of compromise.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards monitoring and analyzing transaction data to identify a window of compromise at a point-of-compromise location. The concept is a long-standing economic practice and is related to managing human behavior, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Moreover, the present claims can be performed in the human mind, thus the present claims also fall within the Mental Processes grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer device. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 21-27 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Claims 21-27 are directed to a process (i.e., method claims).
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
The present claims are directed towards monitoring and analyzing transaction data to identify a window of compromise at a point-of-compromise location. The concept comprises monitoring transaction data for a plurality of transaction cards, constructing a 3D matrix to record the card activities, calculating a point-of-compromise (POC) indicator for each merchant location, calculating a POC acceleration indicator, identifying a candidate POC location based on at least one of the POC indicator or the POC acceleration indicator exceeding predetermined threshold, generating a mass count plot showing a number of transaction cards having suspicious fraud activity at the candidate POC location, and determining a window of compromise at the candidate POC location. The claimed concept is a long-standing economic practice and is related to managing human behavior, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The present claims follow the same fact pattern as Electric Power Group v. Alstom, since they are directed to obtaining data, analyzing data, and providing result of the analysis. Moreover, the present claims can be performed in the human mind, thus the present claims also fall within the Mental Processes grouping. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computer components (i.e. an apparatus with undefined structure, a processor, or a computer media) does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping or mental processes grouping. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Prong Two
Claim 21 recites a computing system as additional element performing basic computer functions, such as monitoring data, recording data in 3D matrix, performing calculations, identifying locations where a calculated indicator exceed threshold, generating a mass count plot, and determining a window of compromise based on identifying a time slice with a highest count in the mass count plot and at least one adjacent time slice having a count higher than a median count. Dependent claims 22-27 do not recite any additional element. The recitation of the computer elements amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract concept on computers. The claimed process can be performed mentally or on paper, and the computer element is merely extra solution. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, claim 21-27 recite a computing system as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as receiving information via network, monitoring changes over time, and identifying a point-of-comprise based on monitored changes surpassing a threshold. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of computer.
Examiner argues that determining a window of compromise at a candidate POC location is not solving a problem rooted in computer technology. The claimed solution (based on counting suspicious activities) is not unique to computer environment. Unlike McRO vs. Bandai, the amended steps/rules are not unique for computer. A human can follow the exact same steps to determine the window of compromise. The claimed features are entirely in the realm of abstract concept, and they do not improve the functionality of computer itself. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 103
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 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman (Pub. No.: US 2005/0055373), in view of Song et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0311736) and Yan (Patent No.: US 8,600,872).
As per claim 21, Forman teaches a method for identifying point-of-compromise locations in a transaction card network, the method comprising:
monitoring, by a computing system, transaction data for a plurality of transaction cards across a plurality of time intervals (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0021-0024, prior art teaches receiving transactions data and constructing a two dimensional matrix with merchants/locations on one axis and transaction cards on the other; the received information includes “bond fide or bogus” transactions, so in other words, the received information includes non-fraudulent transactions and fraudulent transactions; Also compare Fig. 1 of Forman and Fig. 5 and 6 of the present application, they are virtually the same; see paragraph 0023, “Computer automation of filling ‘hits’ in the matrix for each predetermined time period would be known to those skilled in the art”; see paragraph 0024, “a set of daily or weekly matrices that cover a set of time frames, the computer can scan for each given compromised credit card number and extract those merchants having had a transaction, whether bona fide or bogus, with each of said credit cards”; see paragraph 0044, “Each relevant extracted file…or files 305 will be separately considered serially or iteratively”; also see paragraph 0045 and 0052; Examiner also points out that each matrix covers a time frame, which can be a day, a week, or other suitable time frames);
constructing, by the computing system, a multidimensional data structure wherein: a first dimension corresponds to the plurality of transaction cards, a second dimension corresponds to a plurality of merchant locations, and a third dimension corresponds to the plurality of time intervals; for each transaction card of the plurality of transaction cards that performed a non-fraudulent transaction at a first merchant location and subsequently performed a fraudulent transaction at any location, incrementing, by the computing system, a corresponding counter in the multidimensional data structure (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0021-0024, prior art teaches receiving transactions data and constructing a two dimensional matrix with merchants/locations on one axis and transaction cards on the other; the received information includes “bond fide or bogus” transactions, so in other words, the received information includes non-fraudulent transactions and fraudulent transactions; Examiner also points out that each matrix covers a time frame, which can be a day, a week, or other suitable time frames; also compare Fig. 1 of Forman and Fig. 5 and 6 of the present application, they are virtually the same; also see paragraph 0023, “Note that for other implementations more complex three-plus dimensional metrics may be employed”);
calculating, by the computing system, a point-of-compromise (POC) indicator for each merchant location by determining a ratio of a sum of counter values for the merchant location to a total number of transaction cards used at the merchant location (see paragraph 0031, 0041, 0047, 0053, and 0064, prior art scores each merchant using the metrices to determine point-of-compromise);
generating, by the computing system, a mass count plot showing a number of transaction cards having suspicious fraud activity at the candidate POC location for each of a plurality of time slices (see paragraph 0031, “since it is likely that a malfeasant employee has compromised a plurality of credit cards, finding the merchant where the most number of compromised cards have been used is a good indicator of where the felonious activity has occurred”; also see paragraph 0041, 0047, 0053, and 0064, prior art scores each merchant using the metrices to determine point-of-compromise); and
Forman does not teach calculating, by the computing system, a POC acceleration indicator for each merchant location by determining a rate of change of the POC indicator over at least two consecutive time intervals; identifying, by the computing system, a candidate POC location based on at least one of the POC indicator or the POC acceleration indicator exceeding a predetermined threshold.
Song teaches calculating, by the computing system, a POC acceleration indicator for each merchant location by determining a rate of change of the POC indicator over at least two consecutive time intervals; identifying, by the computing system, a candidate POC location based on at least one of the POC indicator or the POC acceleration indicator exceeding a predetermined threshold (see paragraph 0154, “a computer system monitors accounting general ledger items and detects any unusual patterns (e.g., unusual frequency, volume, acceleration, etc.) related to the general ledger items to identify suspicious internal fraud activities” and “if a traveling expense general ledger items has suddenly grown by 500% this month when it compared with the past twelve-month history, some employees may have abused their rights and caused the unusual expenses”; prior art teaches the well-known concept of detecting point-of-compromise by detecting changes in behavior, and in this case an acceleration of fraudulent activities in a time frame compared to historical time frames).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Forman with teaching from Song to include calculating, by the computing system, a POC acceleration indicator for each merchant location by determining a rate of change of the POC indicator over at least two consecutive time intervals; identifying, by the computing system, a candidate POC location based on at least one of the POC indicator or the POC acceleration indicator exceeding a predetermined threshold. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. detecting point-of-compromise by detecting changes in behavior) to a known system (i.e. fraud detection system) ready to provide predictable result (i.e. use existing point-of-comprise detection method to detect point-of-comprise).
Examiner notes the combination of Forman and Song still does not teach determining, by the computing system, a window of compromise at the candidate POC location based on identifying a time slice with a highest count in the mass count plot and at least one adjacent time slice having a count higher than a median count.
Yan teaches determining, by the computing system, a window of compromise at the candidate POC location based on identifying a time slice with a highest count in the mass count plot and at least one adjacent time slice having a count higher than a median count (see column 3 line 28-49, “The historical data may include a list of compromised accounts, and the merchants at which these accounts were used over a period of time. The total number accounts that used these merchants over a period of time (include those that were not compromised) may also be analyzed”, and “To identify the time of compromise, the percentage of accounts that had transactions at the point of compromise in a given period of time may be utilized by fraudsters. Irregularly high values (e.g., spikes in graph) may trigger further analysis”; also see column 4 line 63 through column 5 line 23, “A fourth procedure may utilize the account data identified in the third procedure and run them through point of compromise logic to identify one or more point of compromise merchants and/or compromise exposure window associated with the compromise”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Forman and Song with teaching from Yan to include responsive to identifying the POC location, determine a number of transaction cards having suspicious fraud activity at the POC location for each of a plurality of time slices of the first time interval; identifying a POC time slice that has a highest number of transaction cards having suspicious fraud activity of the plurality of time slices; and determine a window of compromise at the POC location between a first time of the identified POC time slice and a second time of an initial time slice after the POC time slice having a number of transaction cards having suspicious fraud activity below a value determined a number of transaction cards having suspicious fraud activity of the plurality of time slices. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. identifying a window of compromise at the point of compromise location) to a known system (i.e. fraud detection system) ready to provide predictable result (i.e. to improve fraud detection).
As per claim 23, Forman does not teach wherein determining the window of compromise further comprises: determining a starting date of the window of compromise as a beginning of a time slice that has no time gap with the time slice having the highest count; and determining an ending date of the window of compromise as an end of a last consecutive time slice having a count greater than the median count.
Yan teaches determining the window of compromise further comprises: determining a starting date of the window of compromise as a beginning of a time slice that has no time gap with the time slice having the highest count; and determining an ending date of the window of compromise as an end of a last consecutive time slice having a count greater than the median count (see column 3 line 28-49, “To identify the time of compromise, the percentage of accounts that had transactions at the point of compromise in a given period of time may be utilized by fraudsters. Irregularly high values (e.g., spikes in graph) may trigger further analysis”; also see column 4 line 63 through column 5 line 23, “A fourth procedure may utilize the account data identified in the third procedure and run them through point of compromise logic to identify one or more point of compromise merchants and/or compromise exposure window associated with the compromise”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Forman with teaching from Yan to include determining the window of compromise further comprises: determining a starting date of the window of compromise as a beginning of a time slice that has no time gap with the time slice having the highest count; and determining an ending date of the window of compromise as an end of a last consecutive time slice having a count greater than the median count. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. identifying a window of compromise at the point of compromise location) to a known system (i.e. fraud detection system) ready to provide predictable result (i.e. to improve fraud detection).
Claim 22 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman (Pub. No.: US 2005/0055373), in view of Song et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0311736) and Yan (Patent No.: US 8,600,872), and further in view of Bell et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0237759).
As per claim 22, Forman teaches calculating, by the computing system, a card fraud indicator (CFI) for each transaction card by summing all counter values across merchant locations for the transaction card (see paragraph 0062, “the score for each SID is an indicator of likelihood of point-of-compromise”; see paragraph 0064, “Potential points-of-compromise are sorted according to tally score. Score is indicative of increasing likelihood of a source point-of-compromise).
Former does not teach calculating, by the computing system, a card fraud acceleration indicator by determining a rate of change of the CFI over at least two consecutive time intervals; and prioritizing transaction cards for reissuance based on the card fraud acceleration indicator.
Song teaches calculating, by the computing system, a card fraud acceleration indicator by determining a rate of change of the CFI over at least two consecutive time intervals (see paragraph 0154, “a computer system monitors accounting general ledger items and detects any unusual patterns (e.g., unusual frequency, volume, acceleration, etc.) related to the general ledger items to identify suspicious internal fraud activities” and “if a traveling expense general ledger items has suddenly grown by 500% this month when it compared with the past twelve-month history, some employees may have abused their rights and caused the unusual expenses”; prior art teaches the well-known concept of detecting point-of-compromise by detecting changes in behavior, and in this case an acceleration of fraudulent activities in a time frame compared to historical time frames).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Forman with teaching from Song to include calculating, by the computing system, a card fraud acceleration indicator by determining a rate of change of the CFI over at least two consecutive time intervals. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. detecting point-of-compromise by detecting changes in behavior) to a known system (i.e. fraud detection system) ready to provide predictable result (i.e. use existing point-of-comprise detection method to detect point-of-comprise).
Bell teaches prioritizing transaction cards for reissuance based on the card fraud acceleration indicator (see paragraph 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Forman with teaching from Bell to include prioritizing transaction cards for reissuance based on the card fraud acceleration indicator. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. reissuing cards used at the “point of compromised” locations based on priority) to a known system (i.e. fraud detection system) ready to provide predictable result (i.e. prevent fraud).
As per claim 25, Forman teaches identifying transaction cards that were used at the candidate POC location within the window of compromise (see paragraph 0052, “note that once a tallying is established, at risk credit cards may be predicted. A second indexed dataset, sorted by merchants having a relatively high probability of being a point-of-compromise can direct the issuer with respect to which Ajax credit cards should be the subject of an intensified watch for future fraudulent users”). But Forman does not teach calculating a reissue score for each identified transaction card based on: the POC indicator, the POC acceleration indicator, and transaction characteristics of the transaction card; and selectively issuing instructions to reissue only transaction cards having a reissue score above a predetermined threshold.
Bell teaches calculating a reissue score for each identified transaction card based on: the POC indicator, the POC acceleration indicator, and transaction characteristics of the transaction card; and selectively issuing instructions to reissue only transaction cards having a reissue score above a predetermined threshold (see paragraph 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Forman with teaching from Bell to include calculating a reissue score for each identified transaction card based on: the POC indicator, the POC acceleration indicator, and transaction characteristics of the transaction card; and selectively issuing instructions to reissue only transaction cards having a reissue score above a predetermined threshold. The modification would have been15bviouss, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. reissuing cards used at the “point of compromised” locations based on priority) to a known system (i.e. fraud detection system) ready to provide predictable result (i.e. prevent fraud).
As per claim 26, Forman teaches wherein the transaction characteristics include at least three of: a number of merchants where the transaction card had transactions, a number of states where the transaction card had transactions, a last transaction amount, an average risk score, a visa risk code, a customer bin, a number of days since the transaction card was opened, a number of days since the transaction card was last issued, or a number of swiped transactions (see paragraph 0052-0053; also see FIG. 1, each column shows where the corresponding credit card has been used).
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman (Pub. No.: US 2005/0055373), in view of Song et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0311736) and Yan (Patent No.: US 8,600,872), and further in view of Jivraj et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0348042)
As per claim 24, Forman does not teach segmenting, by the computing system, the plurality of merchant locations into groups based on at least one of: a geographical location, a merchant type, a transaction volume range, or a brand affiliation; and applying different POC indicator thresholds to each group.
Jivraj teaches segmenting, by the computing system, the plurality of merchant locations into groups based on at least one of: a geographical location, a merchant type, a transaction volume range, or a brand affiliation (see paragraph 0046, “such groups of merchants may include, but not limited to, groups of merchants located within corresponding geographic regions, specific types of merchants”); and
applying different POC indicator thresholds to each group (see paragraph 0097,” system 140 may identify multiple threshold values based on an analysis of the tabulated fraud risk scores for various segments or types of merchants”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Forman with teaching from Jivraj to include segmenting, by the computing system, the plurality of merchant locations into groups based on at least one of: a geographical location, a merchant type, a transaction volume range, or a brand affiliation; and applying different POC indicator thresholds to each group. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. segmenting merchants and applying different threshold for different segments of merchants) to a known system (i.e. fraud detection system) ready to provide predictable result (i.e. improve fraud detection).
Claim 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman (Pub. No.: US 2005/0055373), in view of Song et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0311736) and Yan (Patent No.: US 8,600,872), and further in view of Mattina et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0372097).
As per claim 27, Forman does not teach determining transaction cards that had non-fraudulent transactions at the candidate POC location outside the window of compromise; and removing data associated with those transaction cards from the multidimensional data structure.
Mattina teaches determining transaction cards that had non-fraudulent transactions at the candidate POC location outside the window of compromise; and removing data associated with those transaction cards from the multidimensional data structure (see paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Forman with teaching from Mattina to include determining transaction cards that had non-fraudulent transactions at the candidate POC location outside the window of compromise; and removing data associated with those transaction cards from the multidimensional data structure. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. removing non-fraudulent data) to a known system (i.e. fraud detection system) ready to provide predictable result (i.e. reduce the amount of storage requirement).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine M Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
MAR-2026