DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in the application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 9, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,327,252. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application and claims of the patent could have been presented together.
Claims 1-20 of the current application are directed toward a first device comprising one or more processors configured; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions [] executed by one or more processors of a first device; and a method, comprising: receiving, by a first device, first data associated with a transaction conducted by a user associated with a second device; receiving, from the second device, a set of second data associated with behavioral data of the user during the transaction; wherein the set of second data is associated with movement data associated with the second device; processing, by the first device, the first data and the set of second data with a fraud detection model, to calculate a fraud score associated with the transaction; and performing, by the first device, one or more actions based on determining whether the fraud score satisfies a threshold score, wherein the one or more actions comprise at least one of: providing, by the first device, a notification that the fraud score satisfies the threshold score, providing, by the first device, a notification authorizing or declining the transaction, providing, by the first device, the fraud score to a financial institution associated with the second device, prohibiting, by the first device, the transaction, or retraining, by the first device, the fraud detection model based on the fraud score.
For example, U.S. Patent No. 12,327,252 mentions: A first device, comprising: one or more processors configured to: receive first data associated with a transaction conducted by a user associated with a second device; receive, from the second device, a set of second data associated with behavioral data of the user during the transaction; receive, from the second device, a set of third data relating to the behavioral data during the transaction, wherein the set of second data and the set of third data are associated with at least one of biometric data or movement data associated with the second device; process the first data, the set of second data, and the set of third data, with a fraud detection model, to calculate a fraud score associated with the transaction; and perform one or more actions based on determining whether the fraud score satisfies a threshold score, wherein the one or more actions comprise at least one of: providing a notification that the fraud score satisfies the threshold score, providing a notification authorizing or declining the transaction, providing the fraud score to a financial institution associated with the second device, prohibiting the transaction, or retraining the fraud detection model based on the fraud score.
As can be seen there are some differences between the claims; however, the differences are obvious and therefore, the claims are not patentably distinct from one another because the claims of the current application encompass the same subject matter that is the same as the patented claims.
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 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 1 -: 1. comprising: one or more configured to: receive first data associated with a transaction conducted by a user associated; receive a set of second data associated with behavioral data of the user during the transaction; wherein the set of second data is associated with movement data associated; process the first data and the set of second data with a fraud detection, to calculate a fraud score associated with the transaction; and perform one or more actions based on determining whether the fraud score satisfies a threshold score, wherein the one or more actions comprise at least one of: providing a notification that the fraud score satisfies the threshold score, providing a notification authorizing or declining the transaction, providing the fraud score to a financial institution associated, prohibiting the transaction, or retraining the fraud detection based on the fraud score. (mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations. fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 2 -: 2. claim 1, wherein the one or more are further configured to: provide a request for input indicating whether the transaction is approved or unapproved; and retrain the fraud detection based on input received in response to the request for input. Claim 3 -: 3. claim 1, wherein the fraud score is used to determine a presence of at least one of malicious activity or a malicious user. Claim 4 -: 4. claim 1, wherein the one or... [id. at 2], train, based on historical transaction data relating to transactions conducted by the user, and based on historical movement data relating transactions conducted by the user, the fraud detection. Claim 5 -: 5. claim 1, wherein the one or... [id. at 2], train, based on historical transaction data relating to transactions conducted by the user, and based on historical data relating to one or more characteristics that relate to behavioral data, the fraud detection. Claim 6 -: 6. claim 1, wherein the one or more, to perform the one or more actions, are further configured to: determine whether the transaction is fraudulent based on the fraud score; and selectively: prevent the transaction based on the fraud score; or allow the transaction based on the fraud score. Claim 7 -: 7. claim 1, wherein the fraud score is higher when the threshold is satisfied compared to when the threshold is not satisfied. (mathematical relationships, fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 8 -: 8. A readable- medium- storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more, cause to: receive first data... receive a set of... wherein the set of... process the first... perform one or more... providing a notification... providing a notification... providing the fraud... prohibiting the transaction,... retraining the fraud... [id. at 1], (mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations. fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 9 -: 9. The readable- medium- of claim 8, wherein the one or more instructions further cause to: provide a request... retrain the fraud... [id. at 2], Claim 10 -: 10. The readable- medium- of claim 8, wherein the fraud... [id. at 3], Claim 11 -: 11. The readable- medium- of claim 8, wherein the one or... [id. at 9], train, based on historical... [id. at 4], Claim 12 -: 12. The readable- medium- of claim 8, wherein the one or... [id. at 9], train, based on historical... [id. at 5], Claim 13 -: 13. The readable- medium- of claim 8, wherein the one or more instructions, that cause to perform the one or more actions, cause to: determine whether... selectively:... prevent the transaction... allow the transaction... [id. at 6], Claim 14 -: 14. The readable- medium- of claim 8, wherein the fraud... [id. at 7], (mathematical relationships, fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 15 -: 15. A method, comprising: receiving first data associated with a transaction conducted by a user associated; receiving a set of second data associated with behavioral data of the user during the transaction; wherein the set of... [id. at 1], processing the first data and the set of second data with a fraud detection, to calculate a fraud score associated with the transaction; and performing one or more actions based on determining whether the fraud score satisfies a threshold score, wherein the one or more actions comprise at least one of: providing a notification... providing a notification... providing the fraud... prohibiting the transaction,... retraining the fraud... [id. at 1], (mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations. fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 16 -: 16. The method of claim 15, further comprising: providing a request for input indicating whether the transaction is approved or unapproved; and retraining the fraud detection based on input received in response to the request for input. Claim 17 -: 17. The method of claim 15, wherein the fraud... [id. at 3], Claim 18 -: 18. The method of claim 15, further comprising: training, based on historical transaction data and historical movement data relating to transactions conducted by the user, the fraud detection. Claim 19 -: 19. The method of claim 15, further comprising: training, based on historical transaction data relating to transactions conducted by the user, and based on historical data relating to one or more characteristics that relate to behavioral data, the fraud detection. Claim 20 -: 20. The method of claim 15, further comprising: determining whether the transaction is fraudulent based on the fraud score; and selectively:... [id. at 6], preventing the transaction based on the fraud score; or allowing the transaction based on the fraud score. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations. b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: utilizing card movement data to identify fraudulent transactions as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Mathematical concepts – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations. Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 1 and is described by the steps of independent claim 8 and is described by the steps of independent claim 15.
Claim 1: Specifically with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "first device", "processors", "second device", and "model". However, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "first device", "processors", "second device", and "model" of independent claim 1 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A first device, comprising", "one or more processors configured to", "receive first data associated with … with a second device", "receive, from the second device, … user during the transaction", "wherein the set of second … with the second device", "process the first data and … with the transaction; and", "perform one or more actions … at least one of", "providing a notification that the … satisfies the threshold score", "providing a notification authorizing or declining the transaction", "providing the fraud score to … with the second device", "prohibiting the transaction, or" and "retraining the fraud detection model … on the fraud score") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 8: Particularly regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 8 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "non-transitory computer-readable medium", "processors", "first device", "second device", and "model". However, independent claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "non-transitory computer-readable medium", "processors", "first device", "second device", and "model" of independent claim 8 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing … set of instructions comprising", "one or more instructions that, … the first device to", "receive first data associated with … with a second device", "receive, from the second device, … user during the transaction", "wherein the set of second … with the second device", "process the first data and … with the transaction; and", "perform one or more actions … at least one of", "providing a notification that the … satisfies the threshold score", "providing a notification authorizing or declining the transaction", "providing the fraud score to … with the second device", "prohibiting the transaction, or" and "retraining the fraud detection model … on the fraud score") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing … set of instructions comprising" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing … set of instructions comprising", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 15: Particularly with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 15 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "first device", "second device", and "model". However, independent claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "first device", "second device", and "model" of independent claim 15 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A method, comprising", "receiving, by a first device, … with a second device", "receiving, from the second device, … user during the transaction", "wherein the set of second … with the second device", "processing, by the first device, … with the transaction; and", "performing, by the first device, … at least one of", "providing, by the first device, … satisfies the threshold score", "providing, by the first device, … or declining the transaction", "providing, by the first device, … with the second device", "prohibiting, by the first device, the transaction, or" and "retraining, by the first device, … on the fraud score") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 15 is ineligible.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5, 12, and 19: Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "biometric" of dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2: Dependent claim 2 adds an additional method step of "wherein the one or more processors are further configured to", "provide a request for input indicating whether the transaction is approved or unapproved; and", "retrain the fraud detection model based on input received in response to the request for input". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 2 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 2 is ineligible.
Claims 3, 10, and 17: Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 add an additional method step of "wherein the fraud score is used to determine a presence of at least one of malicious activity or a malicious user". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 3, 10, and 17 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 are ineligible.
Claim 4: Dependent claim 4 adds additional method steps of "wherein the one or more processors are further configured to", "train, based on historical transaction data relating to transactions conducted by the user, and based on historical movement data relating transactions conducted by the user, the fraud detection model". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 4 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5: Dependent claim 5 adds additional method steps of "wherein the one or more processors are further configured to", "train, based on historical transaction data relating to transactions conducted by the user, and based on … to one or more biometric characteristics that relate to behavioral data, the fraud detection model". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 5 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6: Dependent claim 6 adds an additional method step of "wherein the one or more processors, to perform the one or more actions, are further configured to", "determine whether the transaction is fraudulent based on the fraud score; and", "selectively", "prevent the transaction based on the fraud score; or", "allow the transaction based on the fraud score". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 6 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 6 is ineligible.
Claims 7 and 14: Dependent claims 7 and 14 add an additional method step of "wherein the fraud score is higher when the threshold is satisfied compared to when the threshold is not satisfied". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 7 and 14 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 7 and 14 are ineligible.
Claim 9: Dependent claim 9 adds an additional method step of "wherein the one or more instructions further cause the first device to", "provide a request for input indicating whether the transaction is approved or unapproved; and", "retrain the fraud detection model based on input received in response to the request for input". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 9 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 11: Dependent claim 11 adds additional method steps of "wherein the one or more instructions further cause the first device to", "train, based on historical transaction data relating to transactions conducted by the user, and based on historical movement data relating transactions conducted by the user, the fraud detection model". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 11 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 12: Dependent claim 12 adds additional method steps of "wherein the one or more instructions further cause the first device to", "train, based on historical transaction data relating to transactions conducted by the user, and based on … to one or more biometric characteristics that relate to behavioral data, the fraud detection model". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 12 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 13: Dependent claim 13 adds an additional method step of "wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the first device to perform the one or more actions, cause the first device to", "determine whether the transaction is fraudulent based on the fraud score; and", "selectively", "prevent the transaction based on the fraud score; or", "allow the transaction based on the fraud score". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 13 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 13 is ineligible.
Claim 16: Dependent claim 16 adds an additional method step of "providing a request for input indicating whether the transaction is approved or unapproved; and", "retraining the fraud detection model based on input received in response to the request for input". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 16 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim 18: Dependent claim 18 adds additional method steps of "training, based on historical transaction data and historical movement data relating to transactions conducted by the user, the fraud detection model". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 18 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 18 is ineligible.
Claim 19: Dependent claim 19 adds additional method steps of "training, based on historical transaction data relating to transactions conducted by the user, and based on … to one or more biometric characteristics that relate to behavioral data, the fraud detection model". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 19 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20: Dependent claim 20 adds an additional method step of "determining whether the transaction is fraudulent based on the fraud score; and", "selectively", "preventing the transaction based on the fraud score; or", "allowing the transaction based on the fraud score". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 20 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 1 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 1 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 20 is ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
§101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20140263627 A1 by WYATT; David discloses MULTI-FUNCTIONAL CREDIT CARD TYPE PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE ; wherein: an embodiment includes a credit card device capable of generating a programmed magnetic field of alternating polarity based on a speed of a card swipe, and methods for constructing the device for the purpose of emulating a standard credit card.
USPGPub No. US 20160140562 A1 by Birukov; Andrey et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING TRANSACTION CARD FRAUD BASED ON GEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS OF PURCHASES.
USPGPub No. US 20190188721 A1 by Wiese; Joseph Norman et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CROSS-BORDER ATM FRAUD DETECTION.
USPAT No. US 10692058 B2 to Zoldi; Scott Michael et al. discloses Fraud detection by profiling aggregate customer anonymous behavior.
USPGPub No. US 20150161611 A1 by Duke; Brian et al. discloses Systems and Methods for Self-Similarity Measure.
USPGPub No. US 20190140847 A1 by Piel; Brian discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTHENTICATING A USER BASED ON BIOMETRIC AND DEVICE DATA.
USPGPub No. US 20190385170 A1 by Arrabothu; Apoorv Reddy et al. discloses Automatically-Updating Fraud Detection System.
USPGPub No. US 20160005029 A1 by Ivey; Henry et al. discloses Systems and Methods for Dynamically Detecting and Preventing Consumer Fraud.
USPGPub No. US 20220122082 A1 by JASS; Nicole S. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMPUTING AND APPLYING CONSUMER VALUE SCORES TO ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS.
USPAT No. US 11270311 B1 to Jass; Nicole S. discloses Systems and methods for a context-driven electronic transactions fraud detection.
USPGPub No. US 20230410116 A1 by DUTT; Deepak Chandra et al. discloses CONTEXT-DEPENDENT AUTHENTICATION SYSTEM, METHOD AND DEVICE.
USPAT No. US 11699155 B2 to Dutt; Deepak Chandra et al. discloses Context-dependent authentication system, method and device.
USPAT No. US 10867303 B1 to Manapat; Michael et al. discloses Systems, methods, and apparatuses for implementing user customizable risk management tools with statistical modeling and recommendation engine.
USPGPub No. US 20230060262 A1 by JASS; Nicole S. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTEXT-DRIVEN ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS FRAUD DETECTION.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM and Friday 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM.
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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 08/06/2026
Prosecution Insights