Patent US3000588A successfully refreshed from Google Patents.
Patent US6418436B1 successfully refreshed from Google Patents.
US6418436B1
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Scoring methodology for purchasing card fraud detection
Assignee: First Data Corp
•
Filing: 1999-12-20
•
Granted: 2002-07-09
•
Expires: 2019-12-20
Abstract
Abstract A method and system is disclosed for scoring a match between applicant data provided by a client and data stored in a fraud database. The system includes a merchant application having a unique identifier portion, a non-unique identifier portion, and a reference portion, a processor having access to the merchant information for calculating a first match score based on a match occurring in the non-unique identifier portion, a second match score based on a match occurring in the unique identifier portion, and a third match score based on a match occurring in the reference portion, and wherein the processor sums the first, second, and third match scores to arrive at a total match score to determine whether the total match score has exceeded a predefined match score. If the predefined match score is exceed then an alert is sent to the client informing the client that a fraud match with a high degree of reliability has occurred.
Inventors
- 👤 Robert G. Degen
- 👤 Duane Ritter
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-11-07 12:37
CPC Classifications
G; G07; G07F; G07F7/00; G07F7/08; G06; G06Q; G06Q20/00; G06Q20/22; G06Q20/24; G06Q20/38; G06Q20/40; G06Q20/401; G06Q20/4016; G06Q20/403; G06Q20/4037; Y; Y10; Y10S; Y10S707/00; Y10S707/99931; Y10S707/99933; Y10S707/99936; Y10S707/99941; Y10S707/99944; Y10S707/99945
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 20
Claim 1
Independent Claim
326 words
A method for determining likelihood of a fraudulent purchasing card traction using a fraud database having fraud data used in known frauds, the method comprising: providing purchasing card applicant data for a purchasing card transaction, the purchasing card applicant data including a unique identifier portion having at least one unique identifier data element, a non unique identifier portion having at least one non-unique identifier data element, and a reference portion having at least one reference data element; determining whether any of the purchasing card applicant data matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database; determining which matched purchasing card applicant data occurs in the unique identifier portion, the non-unique identifier portion, and the reference portion; determining which at least one unique identifier data element of the unique identifier portion matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database for each matched purchasing card applicant data occurring in the unique identifier portion; determining which at least one non-unique identifier data element of the non-unique identifier portion matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database for each matched purchasing card applicant data occurring in the non-unique identifier portion; determining which at least one reference data element of the reference portion matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database for each matched purchasing card applicant data occurring in the reference portion; calculating a first match score based on each matched at least one unique identifier data element; calculating a second match score based on each matched at least one non-unique identifier data element; calculating a total match score by summing the first and second match scores; and determining likelihood of the purchasing card transaction being fraudulent as a function of the total match score, wherein the purchasing card transaction is determined to be fraudulent when the total match score is greater than a predefined match score.
Claim 2
Independent Claim
326 words
A method for determining likelihood of a fraudulent purchasing card traction using a fraud database having fraud data used in known frauds, the method comprising: providing purchasing card applicant data for a purchasing card transaction, the purchasing card applicant data including a unique identifier portion having at least one unique identifier data element, a non unique identifier portion having at least one non-unique identifier data element, and a reference portion having at least one reference data element; determining whether any of the purchasing card applicant data matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database; determining which matched purchasing card applicant data occurs in the unique identifier portion, the non-unique identifier portion, and the reference portion; determining which at least one unique identifier data element of the unique identifier portion matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database for each matched purchasing card applicant data occurring in the unique identifier portion; determining which at least one non-unique identifier data element of the non-unique identifier portion matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database for each matched purchasing card applicant data occurring in the non-unique identifier portion; determining which at least one reference data element of the reference portion matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database for each matched purchasing card applicant data occurring in the reference portion; calculating a first match score based on each matched at least one unique identifier data element; calculating a second match score based on each matched at least one non-unique identifier data element; calculating a total match score by summing the first and second match scores; and determining likelihood of the purchasing card transaction being fraudulent as a function of the total match score, wherein the purchasing card transaction is determined to be fraudulent when the total match score is greater than a predefined match score.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
19 words
The method of claim 1 wherein the purchasing card applicant data includes personal information included on a merchant application.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
20 words
The method of claim 2 wherein the personal information included on the merchant application is in a pipe delineated format.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
15 words
The method of claim 1 wherein the unique identifier portion includes an applicant name field.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
15 words
The method of claim 1 wherein the non-unique identifier portion includes an applicant address field.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
50 words
The method of claim 1 further comprising assigning a first match score indicative of the purchasing card transaction being fraudulent when at least one of the at least one unique identifier data element of the unique identifier portion identically matches fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
57 words
The method of claim 1 wherein calculating a fist match score based on each matched at least one unique identifier data element includes assigning a match score to each matched at least one unique identifier data element weighted as a function of the level of matching with fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
45 words
The method of claim 1 wherein calculating a second match score based on each matched at least one non-unique identifier data element includes assigning a match score to each matched at least one unique identifier data element which is less than the predefined match score.
Claim 10
Dependent Claim
30 words
The method of claim 1 further comprising sending an alert to a merchant client involved in the purchasing card transaction when the total match score exceeds the predefined match score.
Claim 11
Independent Claim
352 words
A system for determining likelihood of a fraudulent purchasing card transaction using a fraud database having fraud data used in known frauds, the system comprising: purchasing card applicant data for a purchasing card transaction, the purchasing card applicant data including a unique identifier portion having at least one unique identifier data element, a non-unique identifier portion having at least one non-unique identifier data element, and a reference portion having at least one reference data element; a processor operable for determining whether any of the purchasing card applicant data matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database and for determining which matched purchasing card applicant data occurs in the unique identifier portion, the nonunique identifier portion, and the reference portion; wherein the processor is further operable for determining which at least one unique identifier data element of the unique identifier portion matches any of he fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database for each matched purchasing card applicant data occurring in the unique identifier portion, determining which at least one non-unique identifier data element of the non-unique identifier portion matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database for each matched purchasing card applicant data occurring in the non-unique identifier portion, and determining which at least one reference data element of the reference portion matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database for each matched purchasing card applicant data occurring in the reference portion; wherein the processor is further operable for calculating a first match score based on each matched at least one unique identifier data element, calculating a second match score based on each matched at least one non-unique identifier data element, and calculating a total match score by summing the first and second match scores; wherein the processor is further operable for determining likelihood of the purchasing card transaction being fraudulent as a function of the total match score, wherein the purchasing card transaction is determined to be fraudulent when the total match score is greater than a predefined match score.
Claim 12
Independent Claim
352 words
A system for determining likelihood of a fraudulent purchasing card transaction using a fraud database having fraud data used in known frauds, the system comprising: purchasing card applicant data for a purchasing card transaction, the purchasing card applicant data including a unique identifier portion having at least one unique identifier data element, a non-unique identifier portion having at least one non-unique identifier data element, and a reference portion having at least one reference data element; a processor operable for determining whether any of the purchasing card applicant data matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database and for determining which matched purchasing card applicant data occurs in the unique identifier portion, the nonunique identifier portion, and the reference portion; wherein the processor is further operable for determining which at least one unique identifier data element of the unique identifier portion matches any of he fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database for each matched purchasing card applicant data occurring in the unique identifier portion, determining which at least one non-unique identifier data element of the non-unique identifier portion matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database for each matched purchasing card applicant data occurring in the non-unique identifier portion, and determining which at least one reference data element of the reference portion matches any of the fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database for each matched purchasing card applicant data occurring in the reference portion; wherein the processor is further operable for calculating a first match score based on each matched at least one unique identifier data element, calculating a second match score based on each matched at least one non-unique identifier data element, and calculating a total match score by summing the first and second match scores; wherein the processor is further operable for determining likelihood of the purchasing card transaction being fraudulent as a function of the total match score, wherein the purchasing card transaction is determined to be fraudulent when the total match score is greater than a predefined match score.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
19 words
The system of claim 10 wherein the purchasing card applicant data includes personal information included on a merchant application.
Claim 14
Dependent Claim
20 words
The system of claim 11 wherein the personal information included on the merchant application is in a pipe delineated format.
Claim 15
Dependent Claim
15 words
The system of claim 10 wherein the unique identifier portion includes an applicant name field.
Claim 16
Dependent Claim
15 words
The system of claim 10 wherein the non-unique identifier portion includes an applicant address field.
Claim 17
Dependent Claim
49 words
The system of claim 10 wherein the processor assigns a first match score exceeding the predefined match score when the at least one of the at least one unique identifier data element of the unique identifier portion identically matches fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database.
Claim 18
Dependent Claim
59 words
The system of claim 10 wherein the processor calculates a first match score based on each matched at least one unique identifier data element by assigning a match score to each matched at least one unique identifier data element weighted as a function of the level of matching with fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database.
Claim 19
Dependent Claim
59 words
The system of claim 10 wherein the processor calculates a second match score based on each matched at least one non-unique identifier data element by assigning a match score to each matched at least one non-unique identifier data element weighted as a function of the level of matching with fraud data used in known frauds of the fraud database.
Claim 20
Dependent Claim
30 words
The system of claim 10 further comprising sending an alert to a merchant client involved in the purchasing card transaction when the total match score exceeds the predefined match score.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 2005-07-08 | 2006-01-07 | 2006-07-09 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 2009-07-08 | 2010-01-07 | 2010-07-09 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2013-07-08 | 2014-01-07 | 2014-07-09 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |