CTNF 19/194,890 CTNF 78776 DETAILED ACTION Introduction This Office action is responsive to the communications filed March 12, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on March 12, 2026 is acknowledged. 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. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claims 1-15 are directed to a system including a processor. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. For example, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of transmitting information relating to a transaction. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts related to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to transmitting information relating to a transaction. More specifically, the following the bolded claim elements recite additional elements while the other claim elements recite the abstract idea. according to MPEP 2106.04(a). 1. (Original) A system comprising: an originating client platform including a first electronic processor and a first communications interface ; a first intermediate client platform including a second electronic processor , a second communications interface , and a data store ; and a bridge platform including a third electronic processor and a third communications interface ; wherein the first electronic processor is configured to generate an authorization request and transmit the authorization request via the first communications interface ; wherein the second electronic processor is configured to: receive the authorization request via the second communications interface , determine whether the authorization request is malicious or not malicious, and in response to determining that the authorization request is malicious: store the authorization request in the data store , transmit an authorization request denial via the second communications interface , and transmit an incident payload including details of the authorization request via the second communications interface , and wherein the third electronic processor is configured to: receive the incident payload via the third communications interface , generate a security profile based on the incident payload, and transmit the security profile to a second intermediate client platform via the third communications interface . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test ( See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the processors, communications interface, and data store are merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of transmitting information relating to a transaction. Viewed as a whole, the use of processors, communications interface, and data store as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer or computer networks performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test ( See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of the processors, communications interface, and data store to perform the steps amounts to no more than using generic hardware or software to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of transmitting information relating to a transaction. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of transmitting information relating to a transaction. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea such as the authorization request includes a merchant identifier and a bank identification number; and the second electronic processor is configured to: parse stored authorization requests in the data store to determine a number of stored authorization requests that include the merchant identifier and the bank identification number submitted over a time period, and determine that the authorization request is malicious in response to the number being greater than or equal to a threshold. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2017/0243221 to Gill et al. (“Gill”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2025/0104072 to Carlough et al. (“Carlough”) . As per claim 1, Gill discloses an originating client platform including a first electronic processor and a first communications interface (Fig. 2, 210); a first intermediate client platform including a second electronic processor, a second communications interface (Fig. 2, 220) and a data store (Fig. 8) ; and wherein the first electronic processor is configured to generate an authorization request and transmit the authorization request via the first communications interface (Fig. 3, S310); wherein the second electronic processor is configured to: receive the authorization request via the second communications interface (Fig. 3, S310; paragraph [0024]-[0028]), determine whether the authorization request is malicious or not malicious (paragraph [0028]), and in response to determining that the authorization request is malicious: store the authorization request in the data store (paragraphs [0050], [0057], and [0058]), transmit an authorization request denial via the second communications interface (paragraph [0028]), and transmit an incident payload including details of the authorization request via the second communications interface (paragraph [0028], [0029], and [0040]). Gill does not expressly disclose a bridge platform including a third electronic processor and a third communications interface; and wherein the third electronic processor is configured to: receive the incident payload via the third communications interface, generate a security profile based on the incident payload, and transmit the security profile to a second intermediate client platform via the third communications interface. Carlough discloses a bridge platform including a third electronic processor and a third communications interface; and wherein the third electronic processor is configured to: receive the incident payload via the third communications interface, generate a security profile based on the incident payload, and transmit the security profile to a second intermediate client platform via the third communications interface (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0040]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the elements of Carlough into the system of Gill as they relate to monitoring user transaction activities. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill in view of Carlough as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11, 270,311 to Jass (“Jass”) . Gill discloses the authorization request includes a merchant identifier and a bank identification number (paragraphs [0024] and [0028]- transaction authorization request includes bank account information, cardholder profile, merchant category, BIN). Gill does not expressly disclose the second electronic processor is configured to: parse stored authorization requests in the data store to determine a number of stored authorization requests that include the merchant identifier and the bank identification number submitted over a time period, and determine that the authorization request is malicious in response to the number being greater than or equal to a threshold. Jass discloses the second electronic processor is configured to: parse stored authorization requests in the data store to determine a number of stored authorization requests that include the merchant identifier and the bank identification number submitted over a time period, and determine that the authorization request is malicious in response to the number being greater than or equal to a threshold (col. 19 lines , 40-52 and col. 20, lines 1-8 – search user-specific fraud profile; fraud risk score). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the elements of Jass into the system of Gill in combination with Carlough as they relate to monitoring user transaction activities. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per claims 3-15, these claims perform the same process as claim 2, but analyzes different information in the authorization request (e.g. merchant identifier instead of both the merchant identifier and the bank identification number). The Examiner notes that the information that is included in the authorization request is considered non-functioning descriptive that are not functionally involved in the system. The processor would perform the same regardless of the data included in the request. Hence, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in term of patentability, see In re Gulack , 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983): In re Lowry , 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, these claims are rejected on the same rationale as claim 2. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm. 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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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. /Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697 Application/Control Number: 19/194,890 Page 2 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 19/194,890 Page 3 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 19/194,890 Page 4 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 19/194,890 Page 5 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 19/194,890 Page 6 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 19/194,890 Page 7 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 19/194,890 Page 8 Art Unit: 3697
Prosecution Insights