DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received April 29, 2012. Claim(s) 4, 6-7, 10, 13-14, 20, 22-23, 25-26, 29-30 and 35 have been canceled. Claims 1, 15, 17, 31 and 33 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-19, 21, 24, 27-28, 31-34 and 36 are pending and addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission has been entered.
Priority
Application 11958130 filed 12/17/2007 and having 11 RCE-type filing therein 3. Claims Priority from Provisional Application 60871572 filed 12/22/2006.
Applicant Name/Assignee: No Assignee Information
Inventor(s): Ozment, Frank; Daniel, Clay; Jones, Dewayne
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant rebuts the previous Office Action analysis that the claim limitations do not provide a technical solution to a problem rooted in technology similar to Thales v US, BASCOM and DDR Holdings. Applicant argues that applying the security and transaction parameters as claimed creates a smarter processor that provides tailored notifications. Applicant provides the example “if user out of country for a time period, the user parameters adjust to allow foreign transactions and the system is programmed to warn the user and allow/block transactions with warning message. Applicant points to the limitations:
adjusting with the transaction security system, the number security parameters by the financial institution for a predetermined period of time if fraud is suspect by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location to facilitate payment only in that region, processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters; and if evaluation was favorable, an approval code is sent back to the merchant, who would complete the transaction, and the security parameters screening subsequent transactions;
providing notice of whether the request has been granted or denied to the user at the terminal by the financial institution, the transaction system programmed to either warn the user with a warning message and allow the transaction, or block the transaction with a warning message
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. In rebuttal the examiner points to “Trading Technologies International inc v IBG LLC [IBG] and Trading Technoligies Inc v CQG inc. [CQG]. In IBG, the court found the process claimed was not patent eligible because the limitations claimed known technical features which did not recite a technical solution to a technical problem because the problem disclosed is that traders needed additional data on a trading screen to effectively analyze the market, whereas in CQG, the limitation improved GUI devices having no “pre-electronic trading analog” by requiring specific structured graphical user interface in conjunction with a “prescribed functionality related to the graphical user interface structure” that solved a problem of prior GUI’s. The current application similar to IBG, claim known technological features that perform operations not to solve a problem in the technology itself but to solve a problem in transaction approvals in foreign or particular geographic regions. The current limitations unlike GQG, recite any operations that are directed toward changing or improving upon the capability of the claimed underlying technology, so as to address problems within the technology itself. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that the specification identifies technical errors in systems being addressed by applying security/transaction parameters in response to a transaction request form an allocation transaction account, which could include a user in a specific geographic region for a specific duration denying transactions that should have been approved (false negatives). Applicant argues that similar to DDR which overrides sequences of events with a hyperlink or BASCOM providing a technical based solution in filtering content to address user circumventing filtering technology, or Thales configuration of sensors and the use of sensor data which eliminated complications of previous technology in determining position and orientation of an object on a moving platform, the current application applies the same principles. This is because the claimed subject matter controls transaction with security parameters in ways that minimize errors and increase efficiency of transactions. Applicant recites the limitations emphasizing the protection of funds allocated for disaster relief against garnishment, attachment, seizure and levy by maintaining the account in the name of the source of funds rather than the user. The recitation of the limitations also emphasize the limitations “receiving funds, receiving transaction parameters, requiring certification for the transaction request, secure an agreement from a merchant regarding a geographic location, a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, or a class of services, before establishing a security parameter; “, “the processor comparing the transaction parameter to the first security parameter to evaluate the transaction request wherein the transaction request is evaluated by a processor based on the type of good or service subject to the financial transaction; “ and “
PNG
media_image1.png
6
4
media_image1.png
Greyscale
adjusting with the transaction security system, the number security parameters by the financial institution for a predetermined period of time if fraud is suspect by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location to facilitate payment only in that region, processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters”, arguing the objective of the transaction system including allocated account and processor providing comparison function for evaluating the transaction based on security and transaction parameters, that regulate transactions based on the security parameters and able to adjust the security parameters and respond to the transaction request is patent eligible. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification does not support applicant’s argument and makes clear that the focus of the invention is not to solve a problem in technology but rather to grant/deny a transaction by controlling a transaction card. In the summary, the specification discloses (pages 1-2):
In general, a method for controlling financial transactions can include establishing a
security parameter to debit an account, issuing a transaction card to a user, the transaction card
carrying data identifying the security parameter, receiving a transaction request, the transaction
request characterized by a transaction parameter, comparing the transaction parameter to the
security parameter to evaluate the transaction request, and determining whether to process the
transaction request.
A transaction security system can include a transaction card for an account, the account
funded by a source and issued to a user, the card carrying security parameters, a terminal at a
point of transaction, the terminal configured to initiate a transaction request, the request having
transaction parameters, and a processor configured to receive funds, establish security parameters, receive transaction parameters and evaluate transaction requests based on a
comparison of security parameters and transaction parameters.
In certain circumstances, the account can be designed to compensate for uninsured losses,
such as the uninsured losses of a disaster victim. The account can be allocated for disaster relief,
and can be funded by a source. In one embodiment, the source can be a federal, state or local
government agency.
A security parameter can be, for example, a merchant category code, a card verification
value code, a geographic location, a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access
parameter, a class of goods, or a class of services.
In other embodiments, the system can be configured to provide notice of whether the
request has been granted or denied to a user. The system can be configured to adjust a security
parameter for a predetermined period of time. The system can be configured to permit the
transfer of funds from the account….
Please note the specification does not focus on issues related to problems rooted in technology such as outlined in the cases DDR Holding, Thales, or BASCOM, but instead focuses on the parameters that can be applied to control the approval or denial of a transaction. The emphasized limitations also are directed toward transaction parameters for approval rather than the functions of the underlying technology. Applicant argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues that the claimed “server” is not “merely a computer” The claimed server is specialized by providing resources, data and services for continuous operations with features such as redundant power supplies, error correcting code and therefore is not obvious. Applicant is arguing limitations not claimed. The claimed “server” is part of a system including a processor and server. The specification discloses the “server containing computer program”. A server is merely a computer or software that provides services, data, or resources to other computers according to is common definition. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach “establish security parameters” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Hawkins teaches establishing first and second security parameters “classifying purchases” (col 3), “registering suitable vendor, establishing a contract with a vendor”(see Col 20) “registering reimbursement account (col 22): Hawking in view of Nelson which include geographical location, daily upper limit for debit of funds (para 0031). The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach “ receive transaction parameters: ”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Hawkins teaches registering a purchase account with details on reimbursable and/or unallowable purchases (Abstract, Col 2 lines 20-42, Col 3 lines 5-26);
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach “require certification for the transaction request” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The requirement of a certification is optional, the limitation Hawkins teaches “select only reimbursable items so as to present to the reimbursement account only that meet required business decision criteria for example allowable items, quantities, vendors and/or additional rules using restricted funds and unallowable purchases can be charged to linked account” (Col 32). The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach “secure an agreement from a merchant regarding a geographic location, a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, or a class of services, before establishing a security parameter” the examiner respectfully disagrees, the prior art Hawkins teaches registering an account where as a specific purpose account before establishing security parameters. (Col 2). The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach “permit the transfer of funds to the account”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Hawkins teaches see Fig. 2B-D. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach “evaluate the transaction request based on a comparison of security parameters and transaction parameters” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Hawkins in view of Golan teaches para 0050-0051 wherein the prior art teaches wherein the prior art teaches using sets of principles to access risk which include comparing techniques where the principles include security parameters (identification data sources) and transaction parameters (patterns of activities or deviation from behavior transactions),
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach “adjust with the transaction security system, based on the evaluated transaction parameters, the number of security parameters for a predetermined period of time if fraud is suspect, by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location to facilitate payment only in that region, processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters the evaluation was favorable, an approval code is sent back to the merchant, who would complete the transaction, wherein the number of security parameters are adjusted by the financial institution” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art reference combination Hawkins in view of Golan teaches 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time;. The prior art reference combination Hawkins in view of Golan teaches 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time… para 0050-0051 wherein the prior art teaches using sets of principles to access risk which include comparing techniques where the principles include security parameters (identification data sources) and transaction parameters (patterns of activities or deviation from behavior transactions. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach “provide notice of whether the request has been granted or denied to the user at the terminal by the financial institution, and with applied security parameters to control or screen subsequent transactions” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Hawkins teaches Col 6 lines 9-27 wherein the prior art teaches issuing a reimbursement report … information includes allowed purchases and unallowed purchases, Col 9 lines 2-10, wherein the prior art teaches authorization comprise confirmation, denial or delay and forward the reimbursement data to third party, Col 9 lines 61-67 wherein the prior art teaches reimbursement processor configured to provide reimbursement information to user, Col 10 lines 3-13 wherein the prior art teaches processor to report information for unallowable purchases. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach “the transaction system programmed to either warn the user with a warning message and allow the transaction, or block the transaction with a warning message”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Hawkins teaches “Col 6 lines 9-27 wherein the prior art teaches issuing a reimbursement report … information includes allowed purchases and unallowed purchases, Col 9 lines 2-10, wherein the prior art teaches authorization comprise confirmation, denial or delay and forward the reimbursement data to third party, Col 9 lines 61-67 wherein the prior art teaches reimbursement processor configured to provide reimbursement information to user, Col 10 lines 3-13 wherein the prior art teaches processor to report information for unallowable purchases”, the rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references do provide rationale to combine to establish prima facia obviousness. Applicant makes a general rebuttal without evidence or arguments. Applicant has not pointed out the errors in the reason to combine the prior art references. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to the limitation “sources are pooled sources”, the specification does not discloses the language “pooled sources”, however, the specification does describe “A source, such as a federal, state, or local government agency”, accordingly the examiner is interpreting the language “pool” in light of the specification as a source of funds that is a non-human entity such as government, state, city or comparable entity (i.e. company).
With respect to the term “configuring”, configuration according to its ordinary meaning in computer programming involves using tools in the application to meet requirements without the use of code. However, with respect to the common high level application of the term, there is not a strong dividing line between programming and configuration. For example “ordinary people "program" their VCR, Tivo etc. So for ordinary people program == configure. So, if you configure anything you are indirectly creating a sequence of instructions.
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 1-3, 5, 8-12, 15-19, 21, 24, 27-28, 31-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-12, 16, 34 and 36:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 1 recites a method to (1) issuing a transaction card to a user (2) establishing a first and second security parameter, the wherein clause is directed toward the use of plurality of sources for fund and further limits the security parameters and dos not further limit the function to establish but instead the parameters acted upon (3) funding and monitoring the transaction card, (4) receiving funds or receiving transaction parameters or securing agreement from merchant (5) providing a comparison for evaluating the transaction based on parameters, (6) transmitting the request to download an application to perform an analysis (7) comparing transaction parameter (8) determining whether to process request, the wherein clause does not further limit the technical process but instead limits the transaction balances and the application of security parameter on balances (9) adjusting the security parameter if fraud suspected (10) provide comparison for evaluating transaction based on security and transaction parameters (11)if evaluation favorable an approval code sent (12) providing notice (13) permitting fund transfer (14) displaying notice. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the business practice applied by a generic computer transaction security system comprising a processor and server and displaying a notice. For example the allocated account limitation is part of the system but there is no action or steps related to allocated account. The transaction security is for the intended use to “protect funds”, “levy by maintaining the account” “establishing first …parameter”, “establishing second…parameter” and “issuing the transaction” which are not positively recited. However, if the intended use limitations were positively claimed, the focus the claim limitations when considered as a whole is directed toward management of accounts and funds for providing funds in response to transaction request and issuing related transaction cards for permitting transfer of funds.
According, the claimed subject matter is directed toward performing transaction process that provides an account, issues transaction cards based on established security parameters, receives transaction request, provides a transaction security system to regulate transactions, providing a server to transmit a request, comparing transaction parameter, adjusting the security parameters, providing notice and display the notice is directed toward a transaction process. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of commercial interactions, sales activity and risk mitigation. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite limitations that are directed toward high level functions to perform a transaction. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a transaction security system comprising a processor and server and communication line.
The transaction security system applied to perform the transaction operations “providing notice…”, “displaying the notice on a client device”
The processor applied to perform the transaction operations of “transmitting the request…”
The communication line applied for transmitting request to the server.
The limitations “providing notice”, “displaying the notice…”, “transmitting request” and “communication transmitting request” have been found, according to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The processor applied to perform the transaction operations of “providing a comparison function for evaluation the transaction based on security parameters”, “comparing the transaction parameters …to evaluate transaction request”, processor applied for “determining whether to process transaction request…”.
The transaction security system applied to perform the transaction operations “adjusting …number of security parameters for a period of time…”, and “permitting transfer of funds…”
The claimed processor and transaction security system lack technical disclosure on how the transaction processes are performed as a technical process, instead recites high level functions with expected outcomes as it relates to the transaction processes. Taking the claim elements separately, each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Limitations (1) issuing a transaction card and (2) establishing a first and second security parameter-are directed toward a common business practice, the wherein clause is directed toward the use of plurality of sources for fund and further limits the security parameters and dos not further limit the function to establish but instead the parameters acted upon (3) funding and monitoring transaction card- directed toward a business process; limitation (4) receiving funds or receiving transaction parameters or securing agreement from merchant,-insignificant extra solution activity (5) processor providing a comparison – a common business practice of using computer as tools for data analysis, (6) transmitting the request to download an application to perform an analysis – insignificant extra solution activity directed toward intended use (7) comparing transaction parameter – a common business practice (8) determining whether to process request – a common business practice, the wherein clause does not further limit the technical process but instead limits the transaction balances and the application of security parameter on balances (9) adjusting the security parameter – a common business practice (10) provide comparison for evaluating transaction based on security and transaction parameters -analyzing transaction data a business practice (11)if evaluation favorable an approval code sent- a transaction process to mitigate fraud (12) providing notice -insignificant post extra solution activity (13) permitting fund transfer – a common business practice (14) displaying notice. -insignificant post extra solution activity
When considered as a combination of parts, the combination of Limitations (1) and 2 are directed toward issuing a financial transaction card and establishing transaction parameters- a financial activity. The limitations “a transaction security system including a processor” and “a server” are merely applying generic computer components to the abstract ideas. The combination of limitations 3-8 is directed a transaction process. The combination of limitations 1-8 and 9-11 is directed toward risk mitigation during a transaction process. The combination of limitations 1-11 and 12-14 is directed toward completing a transaction using allocated account and outputting the result. The process claimed are directed toward a business process and not a technical process as the providing, allow funds and establishing functions are independent of each other as it relates to technology but instead are directed toward account management, security parameters and the issuance of a card. The wherein clause “wherein the first security parameter to determine whether to authorize” does not further limit or provide any functions related to the establishing of the security parameter but rather is directed toward transaction parameters. The processes of a comparison function for evaluating, regulating transactions and adjusting transaction security parameter- a transaction process a common business practice. The additional element in the limitation “adjusting with the transaction security system, the security parameters… by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location to facilitate payment only in that region, processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters”, does not provide indications of patent eligibility under step 2A prong 2. The specification and limitation is silent with respect to a process on how the “configuring” of a processor is implemented. There is no indication in the specification or claim language that the structure or a processors basic functions are changed in any way. The claim and specification provides no technical details on the configuring of a processor that is used in the claim to adjust the security parameters. When considered as a whole the claimed language does not reflect a process there the technology imposes meaningful limits upon the judicial exception or where the judicial exception imposes meaningful limits upon the technology (Deere v Diamond). As discussed above in the rebuttal, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim limitations recite using the computer system without limiting how the system performs the recited steps/functions. The limitations only recite outcomes of “issuing”, “establishing”, “funding and monitoring”, “providing”, “comparing”, “determining”, “adjusting”, “if evaluation favorable approval sent” and “permitting” without any teaches about how the outcomes are accomplished.
The claim and specification as to any technical process to perform the claim limitations. The combination of limitations are explicitly directed toward a transaction process and transmit request to analyze security parameters to detect fraud and download application where the application is to analyze transaction data- acquiring applications for data analysis using long established technology. Accordingly the combination of the limitations are directed toward a transaction process and transaction risk mitigation and directed toward outputting the result and decision for transaction.
The steps recited issuing, receiving, providing, comparing, determining and adjusting are not dependent upon each other as a technical process but instead dependent upon each other as transaction process. As stated above in the analysis under step 2A prong 1, except for the limitations “transmitting notice over communication line” and “displaying a notice”, none of the other steps are tied to or require any particular technological process. The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that a human could be performing the determining steps. Furthermore, the claimed steps do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction process and risk mitigation and not toward any of the process that can be found indicative of integration into a practical application The claimed limitations individually, as a combination or as a whole fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to issue cards based on transaction parameter and transmit and provide notification of transaction request. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, a particular technical process for performing the abstract idea that could then be pointed to as being “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising a processor and a server and communication line -–is purely functional and generic. The additional language “adjusting with the system security system …parameter …if fraud suspected by configuring a processor”, recites the configuring at a high level of generality without any details as to the specific technical process. Nearly every system will comprise a processor and server where the processor that is configured and is capable of performing the functions required by the method claim. Furthermore, the processor functions recite expected result without any details as to specific special programming that goes beyond being applied to perform the abstract idea. The displaying function is generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional and the claim limitations are high level functions without any details as to technical implementation. When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “generating”, “issuing a card”, “establishing security parameters”, “funding and monitoring transaction card”, “receiving request”, “providing a comparison function”, “transmitting request along communication line”, “determining whether to process the transaction request”, “adjusting security parameters”, “providing notice”, “permitting fund transfer” and “displaying notice” ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately but instead are a process to implement the abstract idea in a technical environment. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
WO 2005/050374 A2 by Blagg et al -discloses government sponsored funds issued to recipients; US Pub No. 2008/0059373 A1 by Phillips et al discloses stored value card issued by government sponsor for disaster relief with card holder agreement; How Effective Were the Financial Safety Nets in the Aftermath of Katrina? By Cheney et al discloses federal emergency funds distributed that restrict card use to pre-approved types of purchases (page 14)
With respect to the language “configuring …processor”, the specification discloses:
“…the terminal configured to initiate a transaction request, the request having transaction parameters, and a processor configured to receive funds, establish security parameters, receive transaction parameters and evaluate transaction requests based on a comparison of security parameters and transaction parameters” (page 1 lines 22-page 2 lines 1-2)
“A transaction system having security parameters can include a transaction card, a terminal at a point of transaction, the terminal configured to initiate a transaction request, and a processor that regulates transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters 20 specified by a financial institution, such as an issuer of a card”.(page 3 lines 17-20)
A processor controlled by a financial institution can be configured to receive funds, establish security parameters, receive requests having transaction parameters from a terminal, and evaluating transaction requests based on a comparison of security parameters and transaction 20 parameters.(page 7 lines 17-20)
The financial institution, through a processor, can then compare the transaction parameter to the security parameter. If a match is found, the financial institution can authorize the transaction request, and proceed to
transfer the requested funds. The financial institution may also select a security parameter by which to block
transactions. For example, the financial institution may select, as a security parameter, a class of merchants that sell luxury items, liquor, tobacco products, pharmaceuticals, or entertainment 20 goods. If a transaction request is initiated by any of the blocked merchants, the transaction request can also be characterized by a transaction parameter at a terminal. The financial institution, through a processor, can then compare the transaction parameter to the security parameter, and deny a transaction request. (page 8 lines 13-23)
A financial institution may specify certain security parameters for a predetermined amount of time only. For instance, the financial institution may configure a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location that has experienced a regional disaster to facilitate home repair or home payment only in that region.(page 10 lines 1-4)
A processor can be programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters. If the evaluation was favorable, an approval code can be sent back to the merchant, who would complete the transaction. If the evaluation was unfavorable, the transaction can be declined. (page 11 lines 1-4)
As discussed above, technology is not an integral part of the claimed invention as the steps recited are to perform a transaction process and directed toward a technical process or solution. Furthermore, none of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer of a device displaying adds nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The specification discloses in page 13 lines 6-24 and page 14 lines 3-24, that the system and computer elements are generic and can be used to implement the method claimed.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-3, 5, 8-9, 11-12, 16, 34 and 36 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward compensation for uninsured losses- a common business practice. Dependent claim 3 is directed intended user for funds- non-limiting and carries no patentable weight. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward funding source – a common business practice. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward security requirement- a common business practice. Dependent claim 9 is directed toward transferring funds- a common business practice. Dependent claim 11 is directed toward charging a fee-a common business practice. Dependent claims 12 is directed toward card network a common business practice. Dependent claim 16 is directed toward placing funds in an account- a common business practice. Dependent claim 34 is directed toward wireless communication channel- generic communication technology. Dependent claim 36 is directed toward financial institution a card issuer- a common business practice. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-3, 5, 8-9, 11-12, 16, 34 and 36 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claim 15:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 15. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 15 recites a method to (1) issuing transaction card (2) establishing a first and second security parameter, (3) issuing transaction card (4) receiving a transaction request, (5) providing a comparison function that regulates transactions and evaluates transactions and security parameters, (6) transmitting the request to download an application, (7) requiring certification for transaction request, (8) comparing the transaction parameter, (9) determining whether to process transaction, (10) adjusting the security parameter if fraud suspected, (11) provide comparison function for evaluating transaction based on security parameters (12) if evaluation favorable approval code sent (13) complete transaction (14) providing notice of approval/denial (15) allow/block transaction with message (16) permitting fund transfer and (17) displaying the notice. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the transaction process. When considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward performing transaction process that issues transaction cards based on established security parameters, receives transaction request, provides a transaction security system to regulate transactions, providing a server to transmit a request, comparing transaction parameter, adjusting the security parameters, providing notice and display the notice is directed toward a transaction process. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales activity, commercial interaction and risk mitigation. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite limitations that are directed toward high level functions to perform a transaction. The additional limitations recited in the claim limitations beyond the abstract idea include “a transaction security system including a processor” and “a server” and “communication line” are merely applying generic computer components to the abstract ideas.
The claimed processor applied to perform the transaction operations “receiving transaction request…”,
The server applied to perform the transaction operations “transmitting request… “
The communication line applied for transmitting request…
The transaction security system applied to perform the transaction operations “providing notice …”, “displaying the notice”
The limitations “providing notice”, “displaying the notice…”, “transmitting request” and “communication transmitting request” have been found, according to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The claimed processor applied to perform a “comparison function for evaluating the transaction…”, “determining based on evaluated parameters whether to process the transaction request…”
The transaction security system applied to perform the transaction operations “adjusting …number of security parameters for predetermined period of time if fraud is suspect”, “permitting transfer of funds”
The claimed processor and transaction security system lack technical disclosure on how the transaction processes are performed as a technical process, instead recites high level functions with expected outcomes as it relates to the transaction processes. Taking the claim elements separately, each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Limitations (1) issuing transaction card - a common business practice, (2) establishing a first and second security parameter, – a common business practice – the wherein clause does not further limit the establishing function but instead is directed toward data acted upon, data including the purpose of the security parameters and the sources for funding(3) providing initial amount of funds from plurality of sources – a common business practice (4) issuing the transaction card, – a common business practice (5) receiving a transaction request, – a common business practice and insignificant extra solution activity (6) providing a comparison function that regulates transactions and evaluates transactions and security parameters – a common business practice- (7) transmitting the request to download an application, a common business practice of using computer elements as tools to transmit data an insignificant extra solution activity (8) requiring certification for transaction request- directed toward mitigation of risk common business practice, (9) comparing the transaction parameter - directed toward mitigation of risk common business practice, (10) determining whether to process transaction, - common business practice (11) adjusting the security parameter- common business practice, (11) provide comparison function for evaluating transaction based on security parameters- applying technology to evaluate a transaction to mitigate fraud- a business practice (12) if evaluation favorable approval code sent- a business practice transaction process with fraud mitigate (13) complete transaction- a business practice of transaction process (14) providing notice approval/denial – a business practice and insignificant extra solution activity (15) allow/block transaction with message – a business process for transactions to mitigate fraud and customer service (16) permitting fund transfer common business practice and (17) displaying the notice- insignificant extra solution activity. Taking the claim elements separately, each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details.
When considered as a combination of parts, the combination of limitations 1-5 is directed toward issuing a transaction card and security parameters for use in allocating funds for an intended use and card issuance- a common business practice. The combination of limitations 6-12 is directed toward a transaction process and transaction risk mitigation- a common business practice. The combination of steps 1-12 and 13-17 is directed toward processing a transaction based on risk analysis of steps 1-12 The steps recited issuing, receiving, providing, comparing, determining and adjusting are not dependent upon each other as a technical process but instead dependent upon each other as transaction process. As stated above in the analysis under step 2A prong 1, except for the limitations “providing a server” and “displaying a notice”, none of the other steps are tied to or require any particular technological process. The additional element in the limitation “adjusting with the transaction security system, the security parameters… by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location to facilitate payment only in that region, processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters”, does not provide indications of patent eligibility under step 2A prong 2. The specification and limitation is silent with respect to a process on how the “configuring” of a processor is implemented. There is no indication in the specification or claim language that the structure or a processors basic functions are changed in any way. The claim and specification provides no technical details on the configuring of a processor that is used in the claim to adjust the security parameters. When considered as a whole the claimed language does not reflect a process there the technology imposes meaningful limits upon the judicial exception or where the judicial exception imposes meaningful limits upon the technology (Deere v Diamond). As discussed above in the rebuttal, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The “receiving”, “transmitting”, “providing notice” and “displaying” steps (4), (6), (14) and (17) are mere data transmission for requesting a transaction and outputting a notice. Limitations (1)-(3), (5), (7)-13), (15)-(16) are recited as being performed by a computer system and processor at a high level or generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers. The claim limitations recite using the computer system without limiting how the system performs the recited steps/functions. The limitations only recite outcomes of “issuing”, “establishing”, “funding and monitoring”, “providing”, “comparing”, “determining”, “adjusting”, “if evaluation favorable approval sent” and “permitting” without any teaches about how the outcomes are accomplished.
The claim and specification as to any technical process to perform the claim limitations. The combination of limitations are explicitly directed toward a transaction process and transmit request to analyze security parameters to detect fraud and download application where the application is to analyze transaction data- acquiring applications for data analysis using long established technology. Accordingly the combination of the limitations are directed toward a transaction process and transaction risk mitigation and directed toward outputting the result and decision for transaction.
The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that a human could be performing the determining steps. Furthermore, the claimed steps do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction process and not toward any of the process that can be found indicative of integration into a practical application but instead a transaction process and mitigation of risk. The claimed limitations individually, as a combination or as a whole fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to issue cards based on transaction parameter and transmit and provide notification of transaction request. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, a particular technical process for performing the abstract idea that could then be pointed to as being “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising a processor and a server -–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every system will comprise a processor and server where the processor is capable of performing the functions required by the method claim. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising a processor and a server -–is purely functional and generic. The additional language “adjusting with the system security system …parameter …if fraud suspected by configuring a processor”, recites the configuring at a high level of generality without any details as to the specific technical process. Nearly every system will comprise a processor and server where the processor that is configured and is capable of performing the functions required by the method claim. Furthermore, the processor functions recite expected result without any details as to specific special programming that goes beyond being applied to perform the abstract idea. The server recited performs downloading application functions without any details as to technical implementation. The displaying function is generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As discussed above, technology is not an integral part or the focus of the claimed invention as the steps recited are directed toward performing a transaction process. Furthermore, none of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer of a device displaying adds nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
WO 2005/050374 A2 by Blagg et al -discloses government sponsored funds issued to recipients; US Pub No. 2008/0059373 A1 by Phillips et al discloses stored value card issued by government sponsor for disaster relief with card holder agreement; How Effective Were the Financial Safety Nets in the Aftermath of Katrina? By Cheney et al discloses federal emergency funds distributed that restrict card use to pre-approved types of purchases (page 14)
With respect to the language “configuring …processor”, the specification discloses:
“…the terminal configured to initiate a transaction request, the request having transaction parameters, and a processor configured to receive funds, establish security parameters, receive transaction parameters and evaluate transaction requests based on a comparison of security parameters and transaction parameters” (page 1 lines 22-page 2 lines 1-2)
“A transaction system having security parameters can include a transaction card, a terminal at a point of transaction, the terminal configured to initiate a transaction request, and a processor that regulates transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters 20 specified by a financial institution, such as an issuer of a card”.(page 3 lines 17-20)
A processor controlled by a financial institution can be configured to receive funds, establish security parameters, receive requests having transaction parameters from a terminal, and evaluating transaction requests based on a comparison of security parameters and transaction 20 parameters.(page 7 lines 17-20)
The financial institution, through a processor, can then compare the transaction parameter to the security parameter. If a match is found, the financial institution can authorize the transaction request, and proceed to
transfer the requested funds. The financial institution may also select a security parameter by which to block
transactions. For example, the financial institution may select, as a security parameter, a class of merchants that sell luxury items, liquor, tobacco products, pharmaceuticals, or entertainment 20 goods. If a transaction request is initiated by any of the blocked merchants, the transaction request can also be characterized by a transaction parameter at a terminal. The financial institution, through a processor, can then compare the transaction parameter to the security parameter, and deny a transaction request. (page 8 lines 13-23)
A financial institution may specify certain security parameters for a predetermined amount of time only. For instance, the financial institution may configure a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location that has experienced a regional disaster to facilitate home repair or home payment only in that region.(page 10 lines 1-4)
A processor can be programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters. If the evaluation was favorable, an approval code can be sent back to the merchant, who would complete the transaction. If the evaluation was unfavorable, the transaction can be declined. (page 11 lines 1-4)
The specification discloses in page 12 lines 15-25 a server that is denoted by a url where the server contains a program to launch an application . The specification discloses page 13 lines 1-3 discloses that the server may download an application… However, the specification lacks technical disclosure as to the downloading process or any technical technique. The specification discloses page 13 lines 6-24 and 14 lines 3-24 that the system and computer elements are generic and can be used to implement the method claimed. Accordingly the claim fails 2B for patent eligibility.
In reference to Claim 17-19, 21, 24, 27-28 and 32:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 17 and the dependent claims. Such systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. System claim 17 recites a system comprising a transaction card for an account, a system configured for the intended use to (1) secure an agreement from a merchant (2) to monitor and protect allocated fund allocation by designating the account (3)a terminal for intended use to initiate a transaction request, (4) a processor providing a comparison function intended use for evaluating transaction and regulating transactions and adjusting parameters, (5) processor configured for the intended use to receive funds, receive security parameters, compare transaction parameters to evaluate request, to permit fund transfer, to evaluate transaction request based on comparison, to adjust security parameters, if fraud is suspect to allow transactions, (6)configuring processor to allow transactions (7) processor programmed to provide comparison for evaluating transaction based on security and transaction parameters (8) if evaluation favorable approval code sent and transaction completed by merchant (9) The system to provide notice of approval/denial (10) System programmed to message warning, transaction allowed, blocked (11) System programmed to display notice (11) Server configured to transmit request along communication lines (12) Server configured to download an application to perform analysis for security parameters for respective balances
The claimed system, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward the intended use of a transaction process. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of commercial interactions, sales activity and risk mitigation. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite limitations that are directed toward high level functions intended use to perform a transaction. The additional limitations recited in the claim limitations beyond the abstract idea include transaction based system comprising a terminal, a processor and a server. The system comprising a transaction card with the intended use of an account use with security parameter.
The transaction system applied to perform the transaction operation to warn users with warning message.
The server applied to perform the transaction operation transmit request, downloads an application
The limitations “providing notice”, “displaying the notice…”, “transmitting request” and “communication transmitting request” have been found, according to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The terminal applied to perform the transaction operation of “initiates a transaction request”,
The processor providing a comparison functions for evaluating transactions, receives funds, establish parameters, permit transfer of funds, evaluate transaction request, adjust number of security parameters lacking any technical disclosure.
The transaction system applied to perform the transaction operation allow/block transaction.
The claimed processor and transaction security system lack technical disclosure on how the transaction processes are performed as a technical process, instead recites high level functions with expected outcomes as it relates to the transaction processes.
Taking the claim elements separately, each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. The limitations fail to positively recite any functions with respect to account funding or establishing security parameters. (1) to secure an agreement from a merchant (2) to monitor and protect allocated fund allocation by designating the account (3) a terminal for intended use to initiate a transaction request, (4) a processor providing a comparison function intended use for evaluating transaction and regulating transactions and adjusting parameters, (5) processor configured for the intended use to receive funds, establish first and second parameters, permit transfer of funds, evaluate transaction request, adjust security parameters, if fraud is suspect, provide notice and display notice (6) process configuring processor to allow transactions (7) processor programmed to provide comparison for evaluating transaction based on security and transaction parameters (8) if evaluation favorable approval code sent and transaction completed by merchant (9) The system to provide notice of approval (10) System programmed to message warning, transaction allowed, blocked. (11) System programmed to display notice (12) Server configured to transmit request along communication lines (13) Server configured to download an application to perform analysis for security parameters for respective balances
The system comprising a processor configured to receive funds, establish first and second security parameters, receive transaction parameters, evaluate transaction request, adjust security parameters, and the system is configured to provide notice and display notice. The functions are recited at a high level of generality without any details as to a technical process amounting to no more than mere instructions to perform the identified abstract idea by applying the system recited as a tool.
Furthermore, the claimed steps do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application). The system configuration is directed toward a financial process and not directed toward technology in any way. The recited the limitations include (1) secure an agreement from a merchant –implementing legal contract (2) monitor and protect allocated fund allocation by designating the account –a business practice to mitigate risk(3) a terminal initiate a transaction request, - a transaction process (4) a processor performing a comparison function evaluating transaction and regulating transactions and adjusting parameters, - a business process of performing transactions (5) processor configured receive funds, establish first and second parameters, permit transfer of funds, evaluate transaction request, adjust security parameters, if fraud is suspect, provide notice and display notice - mitigate fraud in a transaction (6) process configuring processor allow transactions- perform transactions (7) processor programmed provide comparison for evaluating transaction based on security and transaction parameters- mitigate risk for a transaction process (8) if evaluation favorable approval code sent and transaction completed by merchant - mitigate risk for a transaction process (9) The system provide notice of approval/denial - insignificant extra solution activity (10) System programmed message warning, transaction allowed, blocked- perform a business process of communicating transaction request status to interested parties. (11) System programmed display notice –perform insignificant extra solution activity (12) Server configured transmit request along communication lines –perform insignificant extra solution activity (13) Server configured download an application perform analysis for security parameters for respective balances-– perform insignificant extra solution activity- a common business practice of acquiring applications for data analysis using long established technology.
When considered as a combination of parts the combination of limitations 1-4 is directed toward a transaction process. The combination of limitations 5-9 is directed toward risk mitigation for a transaction process. The combination of limitations 1-9 and 14 is transaction process where data is analyzed and parameters applied/adjusted for risk mitigation. In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter is directed toward a system which the intended use to perform a transaction process and not toward any of the process that can be found indicative of integration into a practical application The limitations recited directed toward intended use and carries no patentable weight as there is no positive recitation of a function. The claimed limitations individually, as a combination or as a whole fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The steps are still a combination made to issue cards based on transaction parameter and transmit and provide notification of transaction request. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, a particular technical process for performing the abstract idea that could then be pointed to as being “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising a transaction card, a terminal, a server, a processor and a device. It is common for computer system in the field of endeavor or transactions to include a “transaction card, a terminal, a server, a processor and a device” capable of performing the basic intended use functions required by the system claims. The claims recite providing a transaction security system as a positive recitation, but fails to provide any technical process for the providing step. As discussed above, the system and its components as claimed are directed toward intended use with the exception of the providing function the system components are directed toward intended use. Considered as an ordered combination, the system component functions are directed toward intended use. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
WO 2005/050374 A2 by Blagg et al -discloses government sponsored funds issued to recipients; US Pub No. 2008/0059373 A1 by Phillips et al discloses stored value card issued by government sponsor for disaster relief with card holder agreement; How Effective Were the Financial Safety Nets in the Aftermath of Katrina? By Cheney et al discloses federal emergency funds distributed that restrict card use to pre-approved types of purchases (page 14)
With respect to the language “configuring …processor”, the specification discloses:
“…the terminal configured to initiate a transaction request, the request having transaction parameters, and a processor configured to receive funds, establish security parameters, receive transaction parameters and evaluate transaction requests based on a comparison of security parameters and transaction parameters” (page 1 lines 22-page 2 lines 1-2)
“A transaction system having security parameters can include a transaction card, a terminal at a point of transaction, the terminal configured to initiate a transaction request, and a processor that regulates transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters 20 specified by a financial institution, such as an issuer of a card”.(page 3 lines 17-20)
A processor controlled by a financial institution can be configured to receive funds, establish security parameters, receive requests having transaction parameters from a terminal, and evaluating transaction requests based on a comparison of security parameters and transaction 20 parameters.(page 7 lines 17-20)
The financial institution, through a processor, can then compare the transaction parameter to the security parameter. If a match is found, the financial institution can authorize the transaction request, and proceed to
transfer the requested funds. The financial institution may also select a security parameter by which to block
transactions. For example, the financial institution may select, as a security parameter, a class of merchants that sell luxury items, liquor, tobacco products, pharmaceuticals, or entertainment 20 goods. If a transaction request is initiated by any of the blocked merchants, the transaction request can also be characterized by a transaction parameter at a terminal. The financial institution, through a processor, can then compare the transaction parameter to the security parameter, and deny a transaction request. (page 8 lines 13-23)
A financial institution may specify certain security parameters for a predetermined amount of time only. For instance, the financial institution may configure a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location that has experienced a regional disaster to facilitate home repair or home payment only in that region.(page 10 lines 1-4)
A processor can be programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters. If the evaluation was favorable, an approval code can be sent back to the merchant, who would complete the transaction. If the evaluation was unfavorable, the transaction can be declined. (page 11 lines 1-4)
The specification discloses in page 13 lines 6-24 and page 14 lines 3-24 that the system and computer elements are generic and can be used to implement the method claimed.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 18-19, 21, 24, 27-28 and 32 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 17. Dependent claim 18 is directed toward compensation for uninsured losses- a common business practice. Dependent claim 19 is directed intended use for funds- non-limiting and carries no patentable weight. Dependent claim 21 is directed toward funding source – a common business practice. Dependent claim 24 is directed toward security requirement- a common business practice. Dependent claim 27 is directed toward charging a fee-a common business practice. Dependent claims 28 is directed toward card network a common business practice. Dependent claim 32 is directed toward a transaction process. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 17. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 18-19, 21, 24, 27-28 and 32 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claim 31:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 31. Such systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. System claim 31 recites a process of providing a transaction security system that regulates transactions. The system is recited as comprising a transaction card for an account, (1) a terminal initiate a transaction, (2) a processor that regulates monitor, regulate, adjust parameters and respond to transaction request, (3) a processor receive funds, establish security parameters, receive transaction parameters, require certification for transaction request, secure an agreement from merchant before establishing second parameter, permit fund transfer, evaluate transaction request, adjust security parameters, if fraud is suspected, provide notice; (4) a server transmit data, (5) provide and display notice.(6) system protect allocated funds by maintaining designated accounts against seizure…
The claimed system, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward the intended use of a transaction process and risk mitigation. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of commercial interactions and sales activity and fundamental economic practices. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite limitations that are directed toward high level functions intended to perform a transaction. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a transaction security system comprising a terminal, a processor and a server
For example the system comprises a transaction card for an account but the transaction card is not recited as performing any functions. The system terminal applied for initiating a transaction request, The system applied for providing a transaction security system. The system server applied for the intended use of transmitting the data; comprising a processor initiate a transaction request, monitor, regulate, adjust security parameters and respond to transaction request, to receive funds, establish parameters, receive transaction parameters, require certification, and secure agreement, permit fund transfer, evaluate transaction request, adjust security parameters, provide notice request granted/denied; transmit data, perform analysis on parameters, display notice, protect funds against garnishment.
The system server applied to transmit the request. The system processor applied to receive funds, establish first and second security parameters, receive transaction parameters, evaluate transaction request, adjust security parameters, and the system is configured to provide notice and display notice. The limitation “the system configured such that funds allocated for disaster relief are protected against garnishment, attachment, seizure, and levy by maintaining the account in the name of a source of funds, rather than in the name of the user” is directed toward a transaction process
The system as part of the providing part such that allocated for relief is directed a commercial interaction and transaction process. The claimed limitations “providing a transaction security system”, is high level and can be performed by technology by any means a system is capable of performing the providing function.
Furthermore, the claimed steps do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
If the limitations were positively recited the limitations include (1) a terminal initiate a transaction -a common business practice using long known technology, (2) providing a processor monitor, regulate and to adjust parameters and respond to transaction request -a common business practice using long known technology, and a processor (3) “receive funds”- transaction process (4) “establish security parameters”- common business practice and transaction process (5) receive transaction parameters- insignificant extra solution activity and common business practice in transaction processes (6) require certification for transaction request-common business practice and transaction process (7) secure merchant agreement before establishing parameters -common business practice and transaction process (8) permit fund transfer - -common business practice and transaction process (9) adjust parameters if fraud suspected--common business practice and transaction process (10) provide notice- -common business practice and transaction process (11) a server transmit data- insignificant extra solution activity using long known technology, (12) provide and display notice-a common business practice using long known technology.(13) system protect allocated funds by maintaining designated accounts --a common business practice using long known technology.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter is directed toward a system which the intended use to perform a transaction process and not toward any of the process that can be found indicative of integration into a practical application The claimed limitations individually, as a combination or as a whole fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The steps are still a combination made to issue cards based on transaction parameter and transmit and provide notification of transaction request. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, a particular technical process for performing the abstract idea that could then be pointed to as being “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising a transaction card, a terminal, a server, a processor and a device. It is common for computer system in the field of endeavor or transactions to include a “transaction card, a terminal, a server, a processor and a device” capable of performing the basic intended use functions required by the system claims. The claims recite providing a transaction security system as a positive recitation, but fails to provide any technical process for the providing step.
As discussed above, technology is not an integral part of the claimed invention as the steps recited are to perform a transaction process and directed toward a technical process or solution. Furthermore, none of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer of a device displaying adds nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
WO 2005/050374 A2 by Blagg et al -discloses government sponsored funds issued to recipients; US Pub No. 2008/0059373 A1 by Phillips et al discloses stored value card issued by government sponsor for disaster relief with card holder agreement; How Effective Were the Financial Safety Nets in the Aftermath of Katrina? By Cheney et al discloses federal emergency funds distributed that restrict card use to pre-approved types of purchases (page 14)
The specification discloses in page 13 lines 6-24 and page 14 lines 3-24, that the system and computer elements are generic and can be used to implement the method claimed.
In reference to Claim 33:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 33 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 33 recites a method to (1) establishing a security parameter, (2) issuing the transaction card, (3) monitoring the transaction (4) receiving a transaction request, (5) regulating transactions and a processor for the intended use to adjust security parameter, (6) transmitting data and request (7) a request to perform the intended use to download an application, (8) comparing the transaction parameter, (9) determining whether to process transaction, (10) adjusting the security parameter, (11) permitting fund transfer (12) providing notice (13) displaying the notice. (14) intended use to protect funds of designated accounts- directed toward intended use does not incorporate a method step. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of transaction process. When considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward performing transaction process that provides an account, issues transaction cards based on established security parameters, receives transaction request, provides a transaction security system to regulate transactions, providing a server to transmit a request, comparing transaction parameter, adjusting the security parameters, providing notice and display the notice is directed toward a transaction process. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of commercial interactions and sales activity. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite limitations that are directed toward high level functions to perform a transaction. The limitations recited beyond the abstract idea include “a transaction security system including a processor” and “a server” are merely applying generic computer components to the abstract ideas.
The system applied to perform the transaction operations “monitoring transactions”, “receiving transaction request”, “providing notices whether request granted/denied” and “displaying notice”
The server applied to perform the transaction operations “transmitting data”
The limitations “providing notice”, “monitoring transactions”, “receiving transaction request” , “displaying the notice…”, “transmitting request” and “communication transmitting request” have been found, according to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The system applied to perform the transaction operations “establishing security parameters”, “issuing transaction card”, “adjusting number of security parameters”, “permitting transfer of funds”
The processor applied to perform the transaction operation “regulating transactions”, “adjust a security parameter”, “comparing transaction parameter to the security parameter…”, “determining whether to process transaction request …
The claimed processor and transaction security system lack technical disclosure on how the transaction processes are performed as a technical process, instead recites high level functions with expected outcomes as it relates to the transaction processes.
Taking the claim elements separately, each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Limitation (1) establishing a security parameters (2) issuing transaction card as a combination is directed toward a business practice. The combination of limitations (1)-(3) and (4)-(11) is directed toward a transaction process. The combination of (1)-(10) and (12)-(13) is directed toward providing and displaying a notice of the transaction process of limitations (1)-(11). When considered as a combination are directed toward a transaction process and not technology. The system as configured such that allocated for relief is directed toward intended use The steps issuing, receiving, providing, comparing, determining and adjusting are not dependent upon each other as a technical process but instead dependent upon each other as transaction process. The system as part of the providing part such that allocated for relief is directed toward intended use. The limitation “the system configured to protect funds allocated for disaster relief against garnishment, attachment, seizure, and levy by maintaining the account in the name of a source of funds, rather than in the name of the user” is directed toward intended use and carries no patentable weight as there is no positive recitation of a function. As stated above in the analysis under step 2A prong 1, except for the limitations “providing a transaction security system” is not tied to or require any technology. The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that a human could be performing the determining steps. Furthermore, the claimed steps do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction process and not toward any of the process that can be found indicative of integration into a practical application The claimed limitations individually, as a combination or as a whole fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to issue cards based on transaction parameter and transmit and provide notification of transaction request. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, a particular technical process for performing the abstract idea that could then be pointed to as being “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising a processor and a server -–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every system will comprise a processor and server where the processor is capable of performing the functions required by the method claim. Furthermore, the processor functions are not positively claimed, but rather is directed toward intended use. The displaying function is generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
As discussed above, technology is not an integral part of the claimed invention as the steps recited are to perform a transaction process and directed toward a technical process or solution. Furthermore, none of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer of a device displaying adds nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
WO 2005/050374 A2 by Blagg et al -discloses government sponsored funds issued to recipients; US Pub No. 2008/0059373 A1 by Phillips et al discloses stored value card issued by government sponsor for disaster relief with card holder agreement; How Effective Were the Financial Safety Nets in the Aftermath of Katrina? By Cheney et al discloses federal emergency funds distributed that restrict card use to pre-approved types of purchases (page 14)
With respect to the language “configuring …processor”, the specification discloses:
“…the terminal configured to initiate a transaction request, the request having transaction parameters, and a processor configured to receive funds, establish security parameters, receive transaction parameters and evaluate transaction requests based on a comparison of security parameters and transaction parameters” (page 1 lines 22-page 2 lines 1-2)
“A transaction system having security parameters can include a transaction card, a terminal at a point of transaction, the terminal configured to initiate a transaction request, and a processor that regulates transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters 20 specified by a financial institution, such as an issuer of a card”.(page 3 lines 17-20)
A processor controlled by a financial institution can be configured to receive funds, establish security parameters, receive requests having transaction parameters from a terminal, and evaluating transaction requests based on a comparison of security parameters and transaction 20 parameters.(page 7 lines 17-20)
The financial institution, through a processor, can then compare the transaction parameter to the security parameter. If a match is found, the financial institution can authorize the transaction request, and proceed to
transfer the requested funds. The financial institution may also select a security parameter by which to block
transactions. For example, the financial institution may select, as a security parameter, a class of merchants that sell luxury items, liquor, tobacco products, pharmaceuticals, or entertainment 20 goods. If a transaction request is initiated by any of the blocked merchants, the transaction request can also be characterized by a transaction parameter at a terminal. The financial institution, through a processor, can then compare the transaction parameter to the security parameter, and deny a transaction request. (page 8 lines 13-23)
A financial institution may specify certain security parameters for a predetermined amount of time only. For instance, the financial institution may configure a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location that has experienced a regional disaster to facilitate home repair or home payment only in that region.(page 10 lines 1-4)
A processor can be programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters. If the evaluation was favorable, an approval code can be sent back to the merchant, who would complete the transaction. If the evaluation was unfavorable, the transaction can be declined. (page 11 lines 1-4)
The specification discloses in page 13 lines 6-24 and page 14 lines 3-24, that the system and computer elements are generic and can be used to implement the method claimed.
Furthermore, none of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer of a device displaying adds nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 12, 16, 34 and 36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,464,859 B1 by Hawkins (Hawkins), in view of US Pub No. 2005/0205662 A1 by Nelson (Nelson) in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0097320 A1 by Golan et al. (Golan) in view of US Patent No. 7,103,570 B1 by Morea et al. (Morea) in view of US Pub No. 2006/0113376 Al by Reed et al (Reed) and further in view of US Pub No. 2005/0164737 A1 by Brown (Brown)
In reference to Claim 1:
Hawkins teaches:
(Currently Amended) A computer-based method ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 10-42), for controlling financial transactions, comprising:
Issuing a transaction card to a user as part of a transaction security system including a processor ((Hawkins) in at least Col 4 lines 27-50, Col 9 lines 48-Col 10 lines 1-13, Col 15 lines 46-Col 16 lines 1-3, Col 21 lines 9-34);
an allocated account debited by a first security parameter and a second security parameter ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 16-40, Col 3 lines 20-23, Col 5 lines 9-32, Col 8 lines 17-59 wherein the prior art teaches information received in secure format, Col 28 lines 1-38),
the transaction security system being part of a secure network configured to protect funds allocated for …[specific use], … by maintaining the account in the name of a source of funds, rather than in the name of the user ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1, Col 1 lines 63-Col 2 lines 1-9, Col 3 lines 1-5 wherein the prior art teaches encrypting information; lines 15-67, wherein the prior art teaches corporate expense account, client expense account, employer's expense account, etc ,...;Col 4 lines 1 -25 wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of reimbursement accounts]. Col 7 lines 3-30 wherein the prior art teaches the reimbursement account an expense account not in the name of the user but instead the employer/3rd party entity, Col 8 line 60-67; Col 14 lines 51-61, Col 18 lines 1-3, Col 19 lines 1-55, Col 20 lines 38-43; Col 22 lines 1-15; Col 30 lines 2-15) establishing a first security parameter by the financial institution to debit the allocated account, establishing a second security parameter (1) by the financial institution to debit the allocated account ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 35-45, registering suitable vendor, Col 20 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches establishing a contract with the vendor where the vendor is authorized and complies with requirements of membership), wherein the security parameter value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, a daily upper limit for a maximum debit funds or class of services ((Hawkins) in at least Col 4 lines 1-26, Col 6 lines 20-34, Col 8 lines 60-67; wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of conditional sets] Col 20 lines 46-67; Col 22 lines 16-67; wherein the prior art teaches registering an account for reimbursement in order to control reimbursement and identifying purchases] Col 9 lines 50-67; Col 14 lines 51-61, Col 18 lines 1-3, Col 19 lines 1-55, Col 22 lines 1-15, Col 27 lines 35-67, Col 28 lines 4-16);
wherein the plurality of sources provides an initial amount of funds to the user, through a financial institution, the first security parameter is designed to determine whether to authorize a transaction based on a type of good or service subject to the financial transaction ((Hawkins) in at least Col 4 lines 27-67; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases), wherein the sources are pooled sources and are not owned by the user ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 15-0040 wherein the prior art teaches identifying purchases that are reimbursable according to one of a plurality of rule sets and determining the applicability of the reimbursement of the reimbursable purchases from unallowable purchases, and receiving authorization for reimbursement; Col 4 lines 1-25 wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of reimbursement accounts; Col 7 lines 3-30 wherein the prior art teaches the reimbursement account an expense account not in the name of the user but instead the employer/3rd party entity) and an agreement is secured from a merchant … ((Hawkins) in at least Col 20 lines 46-67 wherein the prior art teaches registering with the system the purchase account and teaches purchases made with registered vendors with whom a relationship has been created with the system that is approved and authorized member with account specific rules, Col 22 lines 16-36), a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, a daily upper limit for a maximum debit of funds, or a class of services, before establishing a security parameter ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 43-67 wherein the prior art teach registration of user to access account for authorization, Col 3 lines 1-48 wherein the prior art classifying the transaction, Col 4 lines 1-26, Col 8 lines 60-67; wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of conditional sets] Col 9 lines 50-67; Col 14 lines 51-61, Col 19 lines 1-55, Col 20 lines 46-67; Col 22 lines 1-67; wherein the prior art teaches registering an account for reimbursement in order to control reimbursement and identifying purchases] Col 27 lines 35-48, Col 28 lines 5-16);
funding and monitoring the transaction card, the transaction card carrying data identifying the security parameters,… ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 2D ref # 258-262; Col 4 lines 1-10, Col 6 lines 13-17, Col 9 lines 54-60, Col 13 lines 44-58, Col 23 lines 50-67 wherein the prior art teaches tracking transactions; Col 26 lines 1-26, Col 35 lines 5-22);
receiving funds, receiving transaction parameters, requiring certification for the transaction request, securing an agreement from a merchant regarding a geographic location, a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, or a class of service, before establishing a security parameter transaction request from a terminal from a requesting client computer ((Hawkins) in at least Abstract, Col 2 lines 20-42, Col 3 lines 5-26, Col 5 lines 55-Col 6 lines 1-9 wherein the prior art teaches purchase data received and filter to select only reimbursable items so as to present to the reimbursement account only that meet required business decision criteria for example allowable items, quantities, vendors and/or additional rules using restricted funds and unallowable purchases can be charged to linked account Col 32 lines 57-Col 33 lines 1-20);...;
transmitting the request over a communications line ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1 - see Col 20 lines 30-Col 32 lines 1-18; Col 3 lines 5-26, Col 5 lines 10-55, Col 8 lines 4-10, lines 50-54, Col 10 lines 20-33, lines 50-60, Col 12 lines 32-52, Col 15 lines 15-22, Col 26 lines 35-50, Col 27 lines 20-55, Col 31 lines 50-67)…, the transaction request transmitted along the communications line to the financial institution, the transaction request characterized by a transaction parameter ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1 - see Col 20 lines 30-Col 32 lines 1-18; Col 3 lines 5-26, Col 5 lines 10-55, Col 8 lines 4-10, lines 50-54, Col 10 lines 20-33, lines 50-60, Col 12 lines 32-52, Col 15 lines 15-22, Col 26 lines 35-50, Col 27 lines 20-55, Col 31 lines 50-67);
the processor comparing the transaction parameter to the first security parameter to evaluate the transaction request wherein the transaction request is evaluated by a processor based on the type of good or service subject to the financial transaction ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 15-26, Col 4 lines 27-50; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases; Col 5 lines 9-34, Col 8 lines 16-67);
determining, based on the evaluated transaction parameters, whether to process the transaction request for a transaction by a processor, wherein the transaction comprises a first balance and a second balance, and wherein the first security parameter is applied toward the first balance, the second security parameter is applied toward the second balance ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 16-67 wherein the prior art teaches "means for conducting the at least one purchase transaction by the user using the registered purchase account at a registered vendor; and/or means for settling payment with the registered vendor for the at least one purchase transaction using an account other than the reimbursement account. The authorization implementing means can comprise means for facilitating authorization for reimbursement to at least one settlement account for the identified reimbursable purchases; Col 3 lines 5-Col 4; wherein the prior art teaches determining which of a plurality of accounts based on rules whether to reimburse and/or which accounts will be approved for reimbursement from a plurality of specified accounts and whether a complete, partial or no reimbursement is allowed)]; …
providing notice of whether the request has been granted or denied to the user at the terminal by the financial institution, the transaction system programmed to either want the user with a warning message and allow the transaction, or block the transaction with a warning message ((Hawkins) in at least Col 6 lines 9-27 wherein the prior art teaches issuing a reimbursement report … information includes allowed purchases and unallowed purchases, Col 9 lines 2-10, wherein the prior art teaches authorization comprise confirmation, denial or delay and forward the reimbursement data to third party, Col 9 lines 61-67 wherein the prior art teaches reimbursement processor configured to provide reimbursement information to user, Col 10 lines 3-13 wherein the prior art teaches processor to report information for unallowable purchases, Col 28 lines 59-Col 29 lines 1-13 wherein the prior art teaches reimbursement administrator confirm approval/delay reimbursement and/or analysis for additional information and request additional information generating a request via email or postal mail, could require manual confirmation from third party, family, employer, Col 30 lines 60-65 wherein the prior art teaches reporting information associated with unallowable purchases, Col 31 lines 1-21 wherein the prior art teaches reporting reimbursement information to user including allowed/unallowed purchases, payment/reversals, request and other related information, Col 33 lines 39-48, , Col 36 lines 29-50);
permitting the transfer of funds to the account ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 2B-, FIG. 2D; Col 4 lines 1-13, Col 5 lines 55-Col 6 lines 1-20, Col 8 lines 20-38, Col 32 lines 57-Col 33 lines 1-13, lines 58-Col 34 lines 1-13); and
displaying the notice on a client device, wherein the transaction card is part of a plurality of networks ((Hawkins) in at least Col 31 lines 16-35), wherein the transaction card is part of a plurality of networks ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1 wherein the prior art illustrates plurality of purchase accounts with a plurality of merchants; Col 1 lines 13-33 wherein the prior art teaches card is both credit/debit/HSA card, Col 3 lines 15-24 wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of reimbursement source accounts; Col 4 lines 20-27, Col 17 lines 28-35, Col 19 lines 40-44, Col 24 lines 43-46 wherein the prior art teaches vendors registered with bankcards use merchant acquirer, payment processor and bankcard associated network, Col 25 lines 5-11).
Hawkins does not explicitly teach detail language:
server…
… allocated for disaster relief attachment, seizure and levy …
an agreement is secured from a merchant regarding a geographic location
wherein the security parameters are stored in the card;
the processor providing a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters and that regulates transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters and configured to adjust a security parameter and respond to the transaction request from the requesting client computer;
adjusting with the transaction security system, the number of security parameters for a predetermined period of time by the financial institution if fraud if suspect, by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location to facilitate payment only in that region, wherein the processor programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters send an approval code back to the merchant upon a favorable, who would complete the transaction, and the security parameters screening subsequent transactions;
wherein the server is configured to download an application to perform an adjusting with the transaction security system, the security parameters by the financial institution if fraud is suspect for a predetermined period of time;
however Nelson teaches:
server ((Nelson) in at least para 0015, para 0035)
establishing a first security parameter ((Nelson) in at least para 0013-0014, para 0030-0031; wherein the prior art teaches conditions controlling purchases in order to minimize potential misuse of company purchasing cards which a plurality of purchasing features);
establishing a second security parameter... to debit the allocated account, wherein the security parameter is merchant category code ((Nelson) in at least para 0013, para 0019), a card verification value code ((Nelson) in at least para 0018; wherein the prior art teaches magnetic stripe which includes the three tracks with track layout includes Card Validation Code (CVC) or CVCL Which serves as a cryptographic integrity check on the track contents. Much like a message authentication code, the CVC simplifies the process of authenticating track data when it is received by the issuing bank. It also prevents easy fabrication of credit cards: while track data is relatively predictable given the card number, expiration date and other fields), a geographic location ((Nelson) in at least para 0031), a monetary value range ((Nelson) in at least para 0014, para 0019, para 0031 ), a transaction mode((Nelson) in at least para 0026; wherein the prior art teaches processing card transactions, billing), an account access parameter ((Nelson) in at least para 0031 )... a daily upper limit for a maximum debit of funds ((Nelson) in at least para 0003, para 0031)
transmitting the request over a communication line ((Nelson) in at least FIG. 1 ; para 0028, para 0035)
evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters send an approval code back to the merchant upon a favorable, who would complete the transaction ((Nelson) in at least para 0002 wherein the prior art teaches it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant, para 0031-0033 wherein the prior art teaches authorization decision include transaction restrictions including purchase limits, velocity limits, country/geographical limits or any conditions commonly used to control transactions, where if the transaction conditions are meth an authorization code may be associated with transaction information)
According to KSR common sense rationale, simple substitution is obvious. The prior art Hawkins contained a generic system for transaction and communication which differed from the claimed server by the substitution of system hardware and software with other server components (computer hardware/software). The prior art Nelson provides evidence that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known computer hardware/software for computer software/hardware performing similar functions, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach computer systems of hardware and software. Nelson teaches such systems can include servers for communication. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the computer system of Hawkins to include servers of Nelson since Nelson teaches such systems can include servers for communication.
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach controlled accounts whereby the owner of the account sets restrictions on accounts used by non-owners. Although Hawkins does not explicitly cite the conditional parameter for account control as "security parameters", does teach restricted use accounts whereby the user is not the owner of the account and the account holder wants controls applied to insure the accounts are utilized as intended. Nelson teaches the motivation of minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the conditional parameter of Hawkins as a "security parameter" based on the teaching, suggestion and motivation of Hawkins. Furthermore, Nelson provides supporting evidence and motivation (minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access) that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the permutation of security parameters as set forth in the claims, both Hawkins and Nelson contain elements which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some elements with other elements of the same scope and content. Nelson provides supporting evidence that the substituted components and these functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Furthermore, Nelson provides the motivation minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access. Furthermore, the limitation lists with respect to conditions is a Markush group of elements and have been made optional by the applicant. Therefore, additional conditional criteria are simply a permutation of the same concept.
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach transmission of data to other electronic systems (Hawkins FIG. 1, Col 20 lines 49-67). Nelson teaches the web servers utilized for communication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the electronic computerized communication system of Hawkins to include a server as taught by Nelson since Nelson teaches the motivation of utilizing web server for communication.
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach applying certain transaction control rules that must be met in order to approve transactions. Nelson teaches the motivation it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant and that transaction restrictions are commonly used to control transactions in order to generate an approval of a transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to expand on the high level approval after evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters of Hawkins to include sending an approval code as taught by Nelson since Nelson teaches the motivation it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant and that transaction restrictions are commonly used to control transactions in order to generate an approval of a transaction
Golan teaches:
the processor comparing the transaction parameter to the first security parameter to evaluate the transaction request wherein the transaction request is evaluated by a processor based on the type of good or service subject to the financial transaction ((Golan) in at least para 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time; para 0037, para 0050-0051 wherein the prior art teaches using sets of principles to access risk which include comparing techniques where the principles include security parameters (identification data sources) and transaction parameters (patterns of activities or deviation from behavior transactions, ip address, postal code, geo-location, time of day or week), para 0056-0057 )
the processor providing a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters and that regulates transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters and configured to adjust a security parameter and respond to the transaction request from the requesting client computer ((Golan) in at least para 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time; para 0037, para 0050-0051 wherein the prior art teaches using sets of principles to access risk which include comparing techniques where the principles include security parameters (identification data sources) and transaction parameters (patterns of activities or deviation from behavior transactions), para 0056-0057 )
adjusting with the transaction security system, the number of security parameters for a predetermined period of time by the financial institution if fraud if suspect, by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location to facilitate payment only in that region, wherein the processor programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters send an approval … back to the merchant upon a favorable, who would complete the transaction, and the security parameters screening subsequent transactions; ((Golan) in at least para 0023 wherein the prior art teaches processor executing method, para 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time; para 0037 wherein the prior art teaches based on risk score adding authentication step of postponing authentication to a later time, para 0038 wherein the prior art teaches functionality decision/other modules may be executed by using software executing on processors, para 0039 wherein the prior art teaches risk score based on velocity checks, ip geo-location, para 0050 wherein the prior art teaches transaction risk assessment risk list includes ip addresses and derived data (location), address, transaction amount, time in day, day in week, user typical timing (hour and/or day) of transactions, velocity of transactions, for example if 99.9% of users of specific merchant in US, then transaction in France riskier, if velocity is above a certain threshold, with a specific IP address (IP geo-location data such as postal code, para 0056-0057 wherein the prior art teaches lowering a required threshold (parameter) and only ask for additional data when risk is not low, adapt the security level requirements, where assessment risk includes postal code and teaches authentication level requirements include time sensitive secrets asking users to provide a secret that changes in time) and using the security parameters to control or screen subsequent transaction ((Golan) in at least para 0024 wherein the prior art teaches risk parameters control the level of authentication for access, para 0025 wherein the prior art teaches the risk level parameters determines whether to deny transaction; para 0027 wherein the prior art teaches risk level low enough that user/transaction data may be collected; wherein the prior art teaches the risks level above a threshold user required to provide security details to initiate a transaction).
Both Hawkins and Golan teach conditions applied to transaction accounts. Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the terms and conditions for account use as set forth by Hawkins to include adjusting authentication requirements as taught by Golan since Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events.
however Morea teaches:
adjusting, with the transaction security system the security parameters by the financial institution if fraud is suspect ((Morea) in at least Fig. 1-2 and associated text-see Col 8 lines 5-32; Col 4 lines 48-67, Col 4 lines 1 -11, Col 11 lines 40-67, Col 12 lines 1-16; Claim 11 - 12, Claim 19, Claim 23); and
adjusting with the transaction security system, the security parameters by the financial institution if fraud if suspect, ((Morea) in at least FIG. 1-2, Col 8 lines 5-32, Col 4 lines 1-22, lines 48-67, Col 11 lines 62-Col 12 lines 1-16, Claim 11-12, Claim 19, claim 23);
transmitting the request over a communication line wherein the server is configured to download an application to perform an analysis of the first and second security parameters to detect fraud ((Morea) in at least Abstract; Col 2 lines 15-45, Col 3 lines 55-60, Col 6 lines 25-40, Col 7 lines 5-20, 35-44, Col 9 lines 25-50, Col 13 lines 22-43, Col 14 lines 1-18, )
Both Hawkins and Morea teach transmission of data to other electronic systems (Hawkins FIG. 1, Col 20 lines 49-67). Morea teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the electronic communication system of Hawkins to include the teaching of Morea since teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices
Both Hawkins and Morea teach conditional parameters directed toward transaction entities implemented in a transaction process. The prior art Morea teaches applying conditions and adjusting conditions based on threshold with the motivation to prevent accounts being used for an unintended purpose. Although Morea is directed toward a different scope in that it teaches risk categories directed toward business risk of the merchant, the prior art include similar or analogous device/method in that security parameters are applied. Morea teaches design incentives or market forces of adjusting security measures based on the risk category of a transaction entity which would have prompted adaptation of the known device/method. Therefore, Morea is directed toward the base method/device of applying condition/security measures toward a transaction entity. The prior art Hawkins contains a base device/method upon the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Therefore, the prior art, Morea contains a comparable device (method or product that is not the same as the base device) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known "improvement' technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, The differences between the claimed invention, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Brown teaches:
wherein the security parameters are stored in the card ((Brown) in at least Abstract; para 0008, para 0015, para 0017-0020)
Both Hawkins and Brown teach utilizing transaction cards and rules applied to transaction cards in order to identify the user. Brown teaches the motivation of storing security parameters on transaction cards in order to using a single device for use in different markets or regions so that the appropriate set of security parameters may be selected based on location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the storage of parameters for transactions to include storing parameters on the transaction card as taught by Brown since Brown teaches the motivation of storing security parameters on transaction cards in order to using a single device for use in different markets or regions so that the appropriate set of security parameters may be selected based on location.
Examiner note: Providing a permutation of risk levels elements or criteria for adjusting risk protection requirements is obvious and does not provide innovative concepts.
Reed teaches:
the transaction security system configured to protect fund allocated for disaster relief are protected against garnishment, attachment, seizure, and levy by maintaining the account in the name of a source of funds, rather than in the name of the user [intended use]((Reed) in at least para 0004 wherein the prior art teaches “Real time account control that allows only eligible and authorized items to be purchased using the account is desirable… in the recent hurricane disasters, organizations gave individuals in need debit cards having an amount of money in the account associated with the debit card. Those debit cards were to ideally have been used to purchase food, medicine, lodging, and other items and services that were necessary to allow the individual in need to get back on their feet. Had the debit card account been controlled to only permit the purchase of certain items or types of items, then the accounts could not have been used to purchase jewelry and other non-essential items. By identifying eligible items at the store level by category or department, or even at the individual item level, and by identifying items authorized for purchase at the item or category level by the person or entity giving out the card, and by setting up the system described herein, the cards could be restricted to only purchase eligible and authorized items)
establishing a first security parameter ((Reed) in at least para 0004 wherein the prior art teaches limiting parameters controlling the uses of purchases to necessary items rather than non-essential items)
processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters. If the evaluation was favorable, an approval code is sent back to the merchant, who would complete the transaction,… ((Reed) in at least para 0015, para 0045-0046, para 0056-0059 wherein the prior art teaches merchant receives transaction approved, approval amount and completes transaction)
Although Reed does not explicitly teach sending an approval/authorization codes if evaluation of the transaction based on parameters and the transaction parameters are favorable, the prior art does teach the POS receiving approved UPS’s and approved amount sent and transmits the sum of cost for authorized items and tax to produce a payment total using the card network for payment completing the transaction. A approval/transaction code as known in the art is alphanumeric code indicating whether a card transaction has been approved, where when a card holders information is provided to the POS for verification and permission to process, and an approval is rendered back to the terminal which informs the merchant of the validity of the transaction in real-time. According to KSR, which the prior art provides some teaching or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention, the common sense rationale, states that such is obvious. The prior art Reed explicitly teaches a transaction process of a user presenting to the merchant POS account card information where the information is used to compare transaction requirements for approval attached to specific accounts for specific product purchases and based on the conditions being met the merchant POS receives an approval with the approved product UPS for the specific account and the POS transmits the sum of cost for authorized items and tax to produce a payment total using the card network for payment completing the transaction. The sending of an approval to the merchant POS explicitly indicates that the transaction has been approved, which suggests based on common knowledge in the art to one of ordinary skill to modify the reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore the prior art provides some teaching that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to arrive at the claimed invention.
Both Hawkins and Reed teach comparing specific account spending conditional parameter attached to the specific account types for specific account transactions in order to approve payment of such account for specific products. Reed teaches the motivation of comparing specific account conditions for approval with the transaction purchases in order to send an approval to the merchant for completing the transaction and then completing the transaction, since the accounts for the transactions have been analyzed and are for specific types of transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to expand the details of the payment for transactions to include an approval at the merchant POS as taught by Reed. Reed teaches the motivation of comparing specific account conditions for approval with the transaction purchases in order to send an approval to the merchant for completing the transaction and then completing the transaction, since the accounts for the transactions have been analyzed and are for specific types of transactions.
Both Hawkins and Reed teach accounts with spending conditional parameter attached to the specific account types for specific account transactions. Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify spending conditional parameter of Hawkins to include compensation for uninsured losses as taught by Reed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the spending conditional parameter of Hawkins in this way since Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended.
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of Hawkins, Nelson, Brown, Morea, Reed and Golan discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the account is designed to ...
Hawkins does not explicitly teach,
• ...compensate for uninsured losses
Reed teaches:
• ...compensate for uninsured losses ((Reed) in at least para 0004, para 0005)
Both Hawkins and Reed teach accounts with spending conditional parameter attached to the account transactions. Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify spending conditional parameter of Hawkins to include compensation for uninsured losses as taught by Reed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the spending conditional parameter of Hawkins in this way since Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended.
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Hawkins, Nelson, Morea, Golan, Reed and Brown discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the account is allocated for...
Hawkins does not explicitly teach,
• ...disaster relief
Reed teaches:
...disaster relief ((Reed) in at least para 0004)
Both Hawkins and Reed teach accounts with spending conditional parameter attached to the account transactions. Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify spending conditional parameter of Hawkins to include compensation for uninsured losses as taught by Reed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the spending conditional parameter of Hawkins in this way since Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended.
In reference to Claim 5:
The combination of Hawkins, Nelson, Golan, Morea, Reed and Brown discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein at least one sources ...
Hawkins does not explicitly teach,
• ...a federal, state or local government agency
however Reed teaches:
• ...a federal, state or local government agency ((Reed) para 0004)
Both the Hawkins and Reed teach transaction accounts with spending conditional parameter attached to the specified account transactions. Reed teaches the need to limit specified purpose accounts so that the funds are used as intended. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify specified accounts of Hawkins to include disaster relief accounts as taught by Reed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify security parameters of Hawkins to include adjusting the parameters as taught by Reed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the security parameters of Hawkins in this way since Reed further provides the motivation of adjusting security parameters for the purpose of account maintenance.
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of Hawkins, Nelson, Golan, Morea, Reed and Brown discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Hawkins further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
Hawkins does not explicitly teach:
wherein adjusting the security parameter is a temporary predetermined period of time.
Golan teaches:
wherein adjusting the security parameter is a temporary predetermined period of time ((Golan) in at least para 0037, para 0054, para 0057).
Both Hawkins and Golan are directed toward authentication for transactions. Golan teaches the motivation of the risk engine determination process may be altered based on authentication results after challenge such as postponing authentication to a later time disallowing the self-service provide profile change activity in order to mitigate fraud. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the risk and authentication process of Harris to include the adjustment of parameters details as taught by Golan since Golan teaches the motivation of the risk engine determination process may be altered based on authentication results after challenge such as postponing authentication to a later time disallowing the self-service provide profile change activity in order to mitigate fraud.
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of Hawkins, Nelson, Golan, Morea, Reed and Brown discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Hawkins further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising
permitting the transfer of funds from the account ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 49-67, Col 5 lines 57-67, Col 6 lines 1-8, Col 9 lines 23-48);
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of Hawkins, Nelson, Golan, Morea, Reed and Brown discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12:
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the transaction card...
Hawkins does not explicitly teach,
• ...is part of one network
Nelson teaches:
• ...is part of one network ((Nelson) in at least para 0027)
Both Hawkins and Nelson are directed toward payment networks. Nelson teaches the motivation of proprietary card network as well as open networks are used to transmit payment card authorization. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the payment networks of Hawkins to include one network as taught by Nelson since Nelson teaches the motivation of proprietary card network as well as open networks are used to transmit payment card authorization,
In reference to Claim 16:
The combination of Hawkins, Nelson, Golan, Morea, Reed and Brown discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 16
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), further comprising:
placing additional funds to the account ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1 and associated text-see Col 20 lines 30-Col 32 lines 1-18; FIG. 2A and associated text-see Col 32 lines 19-56, FIG. 2D and associated text- see Col 32 lines 59-col 34 lines 1-29; wherein the prior art teaches reimbursing accounts for allowed purchases).
In reference to Claim 34:
The combination of Hawkins, Nelson, Golan, Morea, Reed and Brown discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 34
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the communications line
Hawkins does not explicitly teach:
• is a wireless communication channel
Nelson teaches:
is a wireless communication channel ((Nelson) in at least FIG. 1; para 0038)
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach communication networks. The prior art Nelson, provides evidence (a finding that the prior art Hawkins contained a device (method, product, etc,) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components (that there are a plurality of communication means including "local area networks (LANs), wide-area networks (WANs), intranets, the Internet, an extranet, a wireless network, or any other form of computer network');
Therefore, the prior art Nelson provides evidence that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Based on the teaching of Nelson that various forms of communication means are interchangeable one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable,
In reference to claim 36:
The combination of Hawkins, Nelson, Golan, Morea, Reed and Brown discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 36
(Previously presented) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above)
wherein the financial institution is a card issuer ((Hawkins) in at least Col 11 lines 15-49, Col 19 lines 20-34, Col 20 lines 20-29)
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,464,859 B1 by Hawkins, in view of US Pub No. 2005/0205662 A1 by Nelson (Nelson) in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0097320 A1 by Golan et al. (Golan) in view of US Pub No. 2006/0113376 Al by Reed et al (Reed) and further in view of US Pub No. 2005/0164737 A1 by Brown (Brown) in view of US Patent No. 7,103,570 B1 by Morea et al. (Morea) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2004/0167822 Al by Chasen et al (Chasen)
In reference to Claim 11:
The combination of Hawkins, Nelson, Golan, Morea, Reed and Brown discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11:
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising...
Hawkins does not explicitly teach,
...charging a fee for the use of the transaction card
however Chasen teaches
• ...charging a fee for the use of the transaction card ((Chasen) in at least para 0043)
Both Hawkins and Chasen teach transaction systems utilizing credit cards. Chasen teaches the motivation of a convenience fee for online transactions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify transaction process of Hawkins to include transaction fees as taught by Chasen. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the transaction process of Hawkins in this way since Chasen teaches the motivation of a convenience fee for online transactions.
Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,464,859 B1 by Hawkins, in view of US Pub No. 2005/0205662 A1 by Nelson (Nelson) in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0097320 A1 by Golan et al. (Golan) in view of US Patent No. 7,103,570 B1 by Morea et al. (Morea) in view of US Pub No. 2006/0113376 Al by Reed et al (Reed) and further in view of US Pub No. 2005/0164737 A1 by Brown (Brown)
In reference to Claim 15:
Hawkins teaches:
(Currently Amended) A computer-based method for controlling financial transactions ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 10-42), comprising:
issuing a transaction card to a user as part of transaction security system including a processor ((Hawkins) in at least Col 4 lines 27-50, Col 9 lines 48-Col 10 lines 1-13, Col 15 lines 46-Col 16 lines 1-3, Col 21 lines 9-34), an allocated account debited by a first security parameter and a second security parameter ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 16-40, Col 3 lines 20-23, Col 5 lines 9-32, Col 8 lines 17-38, Col 28 lines 1-38), and …the allocated account being part of a transaction security system by a financial institution wherein funds are allocated to the account by a plurality of sources ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 43-67 wherein the prior art teaches registering purchase accounts; Col 3 lines 48-67; wherein the prior art teaches corporate expense account, client expense account, employer's expense account, etc... ;Col 4 lines 1 -25 wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of reimbursement accounts] Col 8 line 60-67; Col 14 lines 51-61, Col 18 lines 1-3, Col 19 lines 1-55, Col 22 lines 1-15),
the transaction security system being part of a secure network configured to allow funds allocated for …[specific use] …by maintaining the account in the name of a source of funds, rather than in the name of the user [intended use] ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1, Col 1 lines 63-Col 2 lines 1-9, Col 3 lines 1-5 wherein the prior art teaches encrypting information, lines 49-67, Col 7 lines 3-30 wherein the prior art teaches the reimbursement account an expense account not in the name of the user but instead the employer/3rd party entity; Col 30 lines 2-15), establishing a first security parameter by the financial institution to debit the allocated account ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 43-67, Col 3 lines 38-48, Col 4 lines 1-26, Col 6 lines 20-34, Col 8 lines 60-67; wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of conditional sets] Col 20 lines 46-67; Col 22 lines 16-67; wherein the prior art teaches registering an account for reimbursement in order to control reimbursement and identifying purchases] Col 9 lines 50-67; Col 14 lines 51-61, Col 18 lines 1-3, Col 19 lines 1-55, Col 22 lines 1-15), establishing a second security parameter by the financial institution to debit the allocated account ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 43-67, Col 3 lines 38-48, Col 4 lines 1-26, Col 6 lines 20-34, Col 8 lines 60-67; wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of conditional sets; Col 20 lines 46-67; Col 14 lines 51 -61, Col 18 lines 1 -3, Col 19 lines 1-55, Col 22 lines 1-15, Col 22; wherein the prior art teaches registering an account for reimbursement in order to control reimbursement and identifying purchases; Col 9 lines 50-67)
, wherein the security parameter is … a monetary value range ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 27-48 wherein the prior art teaches total amount on purchases), a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, …or a class of services ((Hawkins) in at least Col 4 lines 27-50; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases);
wherein the plurality of sources provides an initial amount of funds to the user through a financial institution, wherein the first security parameter is designed to determine whether to authorize a transaction based on a type of good or service subject to the financial transaction ((Hawkins)in at least Col 4 lines 27-50; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases), wherein the sources are pooled sources and are not owned by the user ((Hawkins) in at least Col 4 lines 1 -25 wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of reimbursement accounts), wherein the sources are not owned by the user and an agreement is secured from a merchant regarding …, a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, or a class of services, before establishing a security parameter ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 27-48 wherein the prior art teaches total amount on purchases; Col 4 lines 27-50; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases), Col 20 lines 46-67; Col 22 lines 1-67; wherein the prior art teaches registering an account for reimbursement in order to control reimbursement and identifying purchases] );
issuing the transaction card to the user, the transaction card carrying data identifying the security parameters [conditions/conditional parameter] ...((Hawkins) in at least Abstract; FIG. 1 and associated text- para 0023-0024; FIG. 2A and associated text- see Col 32 lines 19-56; Col 2 lines 17-43, Col 3 lines 5-26, Col 4 lines 1- 26, Col 6 lines 9-34, Col 23 lines 50-67);
receiving a transaction request from a terminal from a requesting client computer ((Hawkins) in at least Col 32 lines 57-Col 33 lines 1-20), …
transmitting the request with a server over a communications line, the transaction request transmitted along the communications line to the financial institution, the transaction request characterized by a transaction parameter ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1- see Col 20 lines 30-Col 32 lines 1-18 ; Col 3 lines 5-26, Col 5 lines IQ-55, Col 8 lines 4-10, lines 50-54, Col 10 lines 20-33, lines 50-60, Col 12 lines 32-52, Col 15 lines 15-22, Col 26 lines 35-50, Col 27 lines 20-55, Col 31 lines 50-67)...;
requiring certification for a transaction request ((Hawkins) in at least Col 36 lines 29-50);
the processor comparing the transaction parameter to the first security parameter to evaluate the transaction request wherein the transaction request is evaluated by a processor is based on the type of good or service subject to the financial transaction ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 15-26, Col 4 lines 27-50; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases; Col 5 lines 9-34, Col 8 lines 16-67);
determining, based on the evaluated transaction parameters whether to process the transaction request for a transaction by a processor, wherein the transaction comprises a first balance and a second balance, and wherein the first security parameter is applied toward the first balance, the second security parameter is applied toward the second balance ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 16-67 wherein the prior art teaches "means for conducting the at least one purchase transaction by the user using the registered purchase account at a registered vendor; and/or means for settling payment with the registered vendor for the at least one purchase transaction using an account other than the reimbursement account. The authorization implementing means can comprise means for facilitating authorization for reimbursement to at least one settlement account for the identified reimbursable purchases; Col 3 lines 5-Col 4; wherein the prior art teaches determining which of a plurality of accounts based on rules whether to reimburse and/or which accounts will be approved for reimbursement from a plurality of specified accounts and whether a complete, partial or no reimbursement is allowed);...
providing notice of whether the request has been granted or denied to the user at the terminal by the financial institution, the transaction system programmed to either warn the user with a warning message and allow the transaction, or block the transaction with a warning message ((Hawkins) in at least Col 6 lines 9-27, Col 9 lines 2-10, 61-67, Col 10 lines 3-13, Col 28 lines 59-Col 29 lines 1-13, Col 30 lines 30-65, Col 31 lines 1-21, Col 33 lines 39-48, , Col 36 lines 29-50);
permitting the transfer of funds to the account ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 2B, FIG. 2D; Col 4 lines 1-13, Col 5 lines 55-Col 6 lines 1-20, Col 8 lines 20-38, Col 32 lines 57-Col 33 lines 1-13, lines 58-Col 34 lines 1-13); and
displaying the notice on a client device, wherein the transaction card is part of a plurality of networks ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1 wherein the prior art illustrates plurality of purchase accounts with a plurality of merchants; Col 1 lines 13-33 wherein the prior art teaches card is both credit/debit/HSA card, Col 3 lines 15-24 wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of reimbursement source accounts; Col 4 lines 20-27, Col 17 lines 28-35, Col 19 lines 40-44, Col 24 lines 43-46 wherein the prior art teaches vendors registered with bankcards use merchant acquirer, payment processor and bankcard associated network, Col 25 lines 5-11).
Hawkins does not explicitly teach the details
a server,
allocated for disaster relief to be protected against garnishment, attachment, seizure, and levy
wherein the security parameter is merchant category code, a card verification value code, a geographic location,… a daily upper limit for a maximum debit of funds,
… an agreement is secured from a merchant regarding a geographic location, a monetary value range, a transaction mode, …
wherein the security parameters are stored in the card
the processor providing a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters and that regulates transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters and configured to adjust a security parameter and respond to the transaction request from the requesting client computer
transmitting the request over a communications line, ... wherein the server is configured to download an application to perform an analysis of the first and second security parameters to detect fraud
adjusting with the transaction security system the number of security parameters for a predetermined period of time by the financial institution if fraud is suspect, by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographical location to facilitate payment in that region, wherein the processor is programmed to provide comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters, send an approval code back to the merchant upon a favorable who would complete the transaction, for a predetermined period of and using the security parameters to control or screen subsequent transactions, the adjusting being for a predetermined period of time and the security parameters screening subsequent transactions;
Reed teaches:
the transaction security system configured to allow funds allocated for disaster relief are protected against garnishment, attachment, seizure, and levy by maintaining the account in the name of a source of funds, rather than in the name of the user. ((Reed) in at least para 0004; wherein the prior art teaches “Real time account control that allows only eligible and authorized items to be purchased using the account is desirable… in the recent hurricane disasters, organizations gave individuals in need debit cards having an amount of money in the account associated with the debit card. Those debit cards were to ideally have been used to purchase food, medicine, lodging, and other items and services that were necessary to allow the individual in need to get back on their feet. Had the debit card account been controlled to only permit the purchase of certain items or types of items, then the accounts could not have been used to purchase jewelry and other non-essential items. By identifying eligible items at the store level by category or department, or even at the individual item level, and by identifying items authorized for purchase at the item or category level by the person or entity giving out the card, and by setting up the system described herein, the cards could be restricted to only purchase eligible and authorized items);
establishing a first security parameter ((Reed) in at least para 0004 wherein the prior art teaches limiting parameters controlling the uses of purchases to necessary items rather than non-essential items)
processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters. If the evaluation was favorable, an approval code is sent back to the merchant, who would complete the transaction,… ((Reed) in at least para 0045-0046, para 0056-0059 wherein the prior art teaches merchant receives approval amount and completes transaction)
Although Reed does not explicitly teach sending an approval/authorization codes if evaluation of the transaction based on parameters and the transaction parameters are favorable, the prior art does teach the POS receiving approved UPS’s and approved amount sent and transmits the sum of cost for authorized items and tax to produce a payment total using the card network for payment completing the transaction. A approval/transaction code as known in the art is alphanumeric code indicating whether a card transaction has been approved, where when a card holders information is provided to the POS for verification and permission to process, and an approval is rendered back to the terminal which informs the merchant of the validity of the transaction in real-time. According to KSR, which the prior art provides some teaching or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention, the common sense rationale, states that such is obvious. The prior art Reed explicitly teaches a transaction process of a user presenting to the merchant POS account card information where the information is used to compare transaction requirements for approval attached to specific accounts for specific product purchases and based on the conditions being met the merchant POS receives an approval with the approved product UPS for the specific account and the POS transmits the sum of cost for authorized items and tax to produce a payment total using the card network for payment completing the transaction. The sending of an approval to the merchant POS explicitly indicates that the transaction has been approved, which suggests based on common knowledge in the art to one of ordinary skill to modify the reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore the prior art provides some teaching that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to arrive at the claimed invention.
Both Hawkins and Reed teach comparing specific account spending conditional parameter attached to the specific account types for specific account transactions in order to approve payment of such account for specific products. Reed teaches the motivation of comparing specific account conditions for approval with the transaction purchases in order to send an approval to the merchant for completing the transaction and then completing the transaction, since the accounts for the transactions have been analyzed and are for specific types of transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to expand the details of the payment for transactions to include an approval at the merchant POS as taught by Reed. Reed teaches the motivation of comparing specific account conditions for approval with the transaction purchases in order to send an approval to the merchant for completing the transaction and then completing the transaction, since the accounts for the transactions have been analyzed and are for specific types of transactions.
Both Hawkins and Reed teach accounts with spending conditional parameter attached to the account transactions. Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify spending conditional parameter of Hawkins to include compensation for uninsured losses as taught by Reed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the spending conditional parameter of Hawkins in this way since Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended.
however Nelson teaches:
establishing a first security parameter ((Nelson) in at least para 0013-0014, para 0030-0031; wherein the prior art teaches conditions controlling purchases in order to minimize potential misuse of company purchasing cards which a plurality of purchasing features);
establishing a second security parameter ...to debit the allocated account, wherein the security parameter is merchant category code ((Nelson) in at least para 0013, para 0019), a card verification value code ((Nelson) in at least para 0018; wherein the prior art teaches magnetic stripe which includes the three tracks with track layout includes Card Validation Code (CVC) or CVCL Which serves as a cryptographic integrity check on the track contents. Much like a message authentication code, the CVC simplifies the process of authenticating track data when it is received by the issuing bank. It also prevents easy fabrication of credit cards: while track data is relatively predictable given the card number, expiration date and other fie Ids), a geographic location ((Nelson) in at least para 0031), a monetary value range ((Nelson) in at least para 0014, para 0019, para 0031 ), a transaction mode((Nelson) in at least para 0026; wherein the prior art teaches processing card transactions, billing), an account access parameter ((Nelson) in at least para 0031)... a daily upper limit for a maximum debit of funds, ((Nelson) in at least para 0003, para 0031)
transmitting the request with the server over a communication line ((Nelson) in at least FIG. 1 ; para 0015, para 0028, para 0035)
issuing a transaction card to the user, the transaction card carrying data identifying the security parameters ((Nelson) in at least para 0013-0018),
receiving a transaction request from a terminal, the transaction request characterized by a transaction parameter ((Nelson) in at least FIG. 1 and associated text - see para 0023-0024, para 0027, para 0031-0034, para 0042; para 0024, para 0027, para 0031-0034, para 0042);
the processor comparing the transaction parameter to the first security parameter to evaluate the transaction request wherein the transaction request is evaluated by a processor based on the type of good or service subject to the financial transaction ((Nelson) in at least para 0013-0014; wherein the prior art teaches authorization request is matched against approved type of merchant, exemplary based on service with travel merchants)
wherein the processor is programmed to provide comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters, send an approval code back to the merchant upon a favorable who would complete the transaction ((Nelson) in at least para 0002 wherein the prior art teaches it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant, para 0031-0033 wherein the prior art teaches authorization decision include transaction restrictions including purchase limits, velocity limits, country/geographical limits or any conditions commonly used to control transactions, where if the transaction conditions are meth an authorization code may be associated with transaction information)
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach transmission of data to other electronic systems (Hawkins FIG. 1, Col 20 lines 49-67). Nelson teaches the web servers utilized for communication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the electronic computerized communication system of Hawkins to include a server as taught by Nelson since Nelson teaches the motivation of utilizing web server for communication.
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach controlled accounts whereby the owner of the account sets restrictions on accounts used by non-owners. Although Hawkins does not explicitly cite the conditional parameter for account control as "security parameters", does teach restricted use accounts whereby the user is not the owner of the account and the account holder wants controls applied to insure the accounts are utilized as intended. Nelson teaches the motivation of minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the conditional parameter of Hawkins as a "security parameter" based on the teaching, suggestion and motivation of Hawkins. Furthermore, Nelson provides supporting evidence and motivation (minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access) that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the permutation of security parameters as set forth in the claims, both Hawkins and Nelson contain elements which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some elements with other elements of the same scope and content. Nelson provides supporting evidence that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Furthermore, Nelson provides the motivation minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access. Furthermore, the limitation lists with respect to conditions is a Markush group of elements and have been made optional by the applicant. Therefore, additional conditional criteria are simply a permutation of the same concept.
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach applying certain transaction control rules that must be met in order to approve transactions. Nelson teaches the motivation it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant and that transaction restrictions are commonly used to control transactions in order to generate an approval of a transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to expand on the high level approval after evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters of Hawkins to include sending an approval code as taught by Nelson since Nelson teaches the motivation it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant and that transaction restrictions are commonly used to control transactions in order to generate an approval of a transaction
Nelson provides supporting evidence and motivation (minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access) that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Golan teaches:
the processor providing a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters and that regulates transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters and configured to adjust a security parameter and respond to the transaction request from the requesting client computer ((Golan) in at least para 0027-0029 wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time; para 0037, para 0050-0051 wherein the prior art teaches using sets of principles to access risk which include comparing techniques where the principles include security parameters (identification data sources) and transaction parameters (patterns of activities or deviation from behavior transactions), para 0056-0057)
adjusting with the transaction security system, the number of security parameters for a predetermined period of time by the financial institution if fraud is suspect, by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographical location to facilitate payment in that region, wherein the processor is programmed to provide comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters, send an approval …back to the merchant upon a favorable, who would complete the transaction, for a predetermined period of and using the security parameters to control or screen subsequent transactions, the adjusting being for a predetermined period of time and the security parameters screening subsequent transactions; (Golan) in at least para 0023 wherein the prior art teaches processor executing method, para 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time; para 0037 wherein the prior art teaches based on risk score adding authentication step of postponing authentication to a later time, para 0038 wherein the prior art teaches functionality decision/other modules may be executed by using software executing on processors, para 0039 wherein the prior art teaches risk score based on velocity checks, ip geo-location, para 0050 wherein the prior art teaches transaction risk assessment risk list includes ip addresses and derived data (location), address, transaction amount, time in day, day in week, user typical timing (hour and/or day) of transactions, velocity of transactions, for example if 99.9% of users of specific merchant in US, then transaction in France riskier, if velocity is above a certain threshold, with a specific IP address (IP geo-location data such as postal code, para 0056-0057 wherein the prior art teaches lowering a required threshold (parameter) and only ask for additional data when risk is not low, adapt the security level requirements, where assessment risk includes postal code and teaches authentication level requirements include time sensitive secrets asking users to provide a secret that changes in time) para 0076)
Both Hawkins and Golan teach conditions applied to transaction accounts. Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the terms and conditions for account use as set forth by Hawkins to include adjusting authentication requirements as taught by Golan since Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events.
however Morea teaches:
adjusting, with the transaction security system the security parameters by the financial institution if fraud is suspect, ((Morea) in at least Col 4 lines 48-67, Col 4 lines 1-11, Col 11 lines 40-67, Col 12 lines 1-16; Claim 11 -12, Claim 19, Claim 23);
transmitting the request with a server over a communications line, the transaction request transmitted along the communications line to the financial institution, the transaction request characterized by a transaction parameter, wherein the server is configured to download an application to perform an analysis of the first and second security parameters to detect fraud ((Morea) in at least Abstract; FIG. 9; Col 2 lines 15-45, Col 3 lines 55-60, Col 6 lines 25-40, Col 7 lines 5-20, 35-44, Col 9 lines 25-50, Col 13 lines 22-43, Col 14 lines 1-18, Col 15 lines 7-15)
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach transmission of data to other electronic systems (Hawkins FIG. 1, Col 20 lines 49-67). Morea teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the electronic communication system of Hawkins to include the teaching of Morea since teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices
Both Hawkins and Morea teach conditional parameters directed toward transaction entities implemented in a transaction process. The prior art Morea teaches applying conditions and adjusting conditions based on threshold with the motivation to prevent accounts being used for an unintended purpose. Although Morea is directed toward a different scope in that it teaches risk categories directed toward business risk of the merchant, the prior art include similar or analogous device/method in that security parameters are applied. Morea teaches design incentives or market forces of adjusting security measures based on the risk category of a transaction entity which would have prompted adaptation of the known device/method. Therefore, Morea is directed toward the base method/device of applying condition/security measures toward a transaction entity. The prior art Hawkins contains a base device/method upon the claimed invention is an improvement. Therefore, the prior art, Morea contains a comparable device (method or product that is not the same as the base device) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known "improvement' technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, The differences between the claimed invention, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Brown teaches:
wherein the security parameters are stored in the card ((Brown) in at least Abstract; para 0008, para 0015, para 0017-0020)
Both Hawkins and Brown teach utilizing transaction cards and rules applied to transaction cards in order to identify the user. Brown teaches the motivation of storing security parameters on transaction cards in order to using a single device for use in different markets or regions so that the appropriate set of security parameters may be selected based on location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the storage of parameters for transactions to include storing parameters on the transaction card as taught by Brown since Brown teaches the motivation of storing security parameters on transaction cards in order to using a single device for use in different markets or regions so that the appropriate set of security parameters may be selected based on location.
Claims 17-19, 21, 24, 28 and 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,464,859 B1 by Hawkins, in view of US Pub No. 2005/0164737 A1 by Brown (Brown) in view of US Pub No. 2006/0113376 Al by Reed et al (Reed) in view of US Pub No. 20050205662 A1 by Nelson (Nelson), and further in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0097320 A1 by Golan et al. (Golan) and in view of US Patent No. 7,103,570 B1 by Morea et al. (Morea)
In reference to Claim 17:
Hawkins teaches:
(Currently Amended) A computer-based transaction security system ((Hawkins) in at least Col 7 lines 55-57) comprising:
a transaction card for an account, the account funded by a plurality of sources and issued to a user with an initial amount of funds allocated to the account through a financial institution ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 2A and associated text-see Col 32 lines 19-56; Col 2 lines 43-67; wherein the prior art teaches registering purchase accounts; Col 3 lines 48-67; wherein the prior art teaches corporate expense account, client expense account employer's expense account, etc... ;Col 4 lines 1 -25 wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of reimbursement accounts]Col 8 line 60-67, Col 19 lines 1-12), the card carrying first and second security parameters [conditional parameter/ conditions] established by the plurality of sources, …wherein the sources are not owned by the user ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 43-67, Col 3 lines 38-48, Col 4 lines 1 -26, wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of reimbursement accounts; Col 6 lines 20- 34, Col 8 lines 60-67; wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of conditional sets; Col 7 lines 3-30 wherein the prior art teaches the reimbursement account an expense account not in the name of the user but instead the employer/3rd party entity; Col 20 lines 46-67; Col 22 lines 16-67; wherein the prior art teaches registering an account for reimbursement in order to control reimbursement and identifying intended/approved purchases] Col 9 lines 50-67) and the system is that secures an agreement from a merchant ((Hawkins) in at least Col 20 lines 46-67, Col 22 lines 16-36) regarding … a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, … or a class of services, before establishing a security parameter, and wherein the security parameter is …a card verification value code, …, a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, or a class of services ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 27-48 wherein the prior art teaches total amount on purchases, Col 4 lines 27-50; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases; Examiner notes the limitations are repetitive);
the system that monitors and protect funds allocated for …[specific use]…by maintaining the account in the name of a source of funds, rather than in the name of the user ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 2D ref # 258-262;, Col 1 lines 63-Col 2 lines 1-9, Col 3 lines 49-67, Col 4 lines 1-10, Col 6 lines 13-17, Col 7 lines 3-30 wherein the prior art teaches the reimbursement account an expense account not in the name of the user but instead the employer/3rd party entity; Col 9 lines 54-60, Col 13 lines 44-58, Col 23 lines 50-67 wherein the prior art teaches tracking transactions; Col 26 lines 1-26, Col 30 lines 2-15, Col 35 lines 5-22);
a terminal at a point of transaction, the terminal initiates a transaction request for a transaction from a requesting client computer ((Hawkins) in at least Col 20 lines 20-29, Col 23 lines 6-36 51-67, Col 24 lines 1-16), …, and configured to receive funds ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 2B, FIG. 2D; Col 4 lines 1-13, Col 5 lines 55-Col 6 lines 1-20, Col 8 lines 20-38, Col 32 lines 57-Col 33 lines 1-13, lines 58-Col 34 lines 1-13), establish the first and second security parameters ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 43-67, Col 3 lines 38-48, Col 4 lines 1-26, Col 6 lines 20-34, Col 8 lines 60-67; wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of conditional sets] Col 20 lines 46-67; Col 22 lines 16-67; wherein the prior art teaches registering an account for reimbursement in order to control reimbursement and identifying purchases] Col 9 lines 50-67; Col 14 lines 51-61, Col 18 lines 1-3, Col 19 lines 1-55, Col 22 lines 1-15 wherein the prior art teaches registering an account for reimbursement in order to control reimbursement and identifying purchases; Col 9 lines 50-67), receive transaction parameters ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1 - see Col 20 lines 30-Col 32 lines 1-18; Col 3 lines 5-26, Col 5 lines 10-55, Col 8 lines 4-10, lines 50-54, Col 10 lines 20-33, lines 50-60, Col 12 lines 32-52, Col 15 lines 15-22, Col 26 lines 35-50, Col 27 lines 20-55, Col 31 lines 50-67), compare the transaction parameter to the first security parameter to evaluate the transaction request ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 15-26, Col 4 lines 27-50; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases; Col 5 lines 9-34, Col 8 lines 16-67), permit the transfer of funds to the account ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 2B, FIG. 2D; Col 4 lines 1-13, Col 5 lines 55-Col 6 lines 1-20, Col 8 lines 20-38, Col 32 lines 57-Col 33 lines 1-13, lines 58-Col 34 lines 1-13), evaluate transaction requests based on a comparison of security parameters and transaction parameters ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 15-26, Col 4 lines 27-50; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases; Col 5 lines 9-34, Col 8 lines 16-67), … and the system provides notice of whether the request has been granted or denied by the financial institution to the user at the terminal ((Hawkins) in at least Col 6 lines 9-27, Col 9 lines 2-10, 61-67, Col 10 lines 3-13, Col 28 lines 59-Col 29 lines 1-13, Col 30 lines 30-65, Col 31 lines 1-21, Col 33 lines 39-48, , Col 36 lines 29-50), the transaction system programmed to either warn the user with a warning message and allow the transaction, or block the transaction with a warning message ((Hawkins) in at least Col 6 lines 9-27, Col 9 lines 2-10, 61-67, Col 10 lines 3-13, Col 28 lines 59-Col 29 lines 1-13, Col 30 lines 30-65, Col 31 lines 1-21, Col 33 lines 39-48, , Col 36 lines 29-50), and display the notice on a client device, wherein the transaction card is part of a plurality of networks ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1; Col 1 lines 13-33, Col 3 lines 15-24, Col 4 lines 20-27, Col 17 lines 28-35, Col 19 lines 28-35, Col 19 lines 40-44, Col 24 lines 43-46, Col 28 lines 59-67, Col 30 lines 1-25, 30-65, Col 31 lines 1-35, Col 36 lines 29-50, Col 25 lines 5-11); and
a server [communication means] that transmits the request over a communications line, the transaction request transmitted along the communications line to the financial institution, the request having transaction parameters ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1- see Col 20 lines 30-Col 32 lines 1-18; Col 3 lines 5-26, Col 5 lines 10-55, Col 8 lines 4-10, lines 50-54, Col 10 lines 20-33, lines 50-60, Col 12 lines 32-52, Col 15 lines 15-22, Col 26 lines 35-50, Col 27 lines 20-55, Col 31 lines 50-67), wherein the server that downloads an application to perform an analysis of the first and second security parameters to detect fraud, wherein the transaction comprises a first balance and a second balance, and wherein the first security parameter is applied toward the first balance, the second security parameter is applied toward the second balance ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 16-67 wherein the prior art teaches "means for conducting the at least one purchase transaction by the user using the registered purchase account at a registered vendor; and/or means for settling payment with the registered vendor for the at least one purchase transaction using an account other than the reimbursement account. The authorization implementing means can comprise means for facilitating authorization for reimbursement to at least one settlement account for the identified reimbursable purchases”)
Hawkins does not explicitly teach
wherein the sources are not owned by the user
an agreement from a merchant regarding a …, a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, …, or a class of services, before establishing a security parameter, and wherein the security parameter is … a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, or a class of services
disaster relief against garnishment, attachment, seizure, and levy…;
wherein the security parameters are stored in the card
a processor providing a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and transaction parameter and that regulates transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters and that adjusts a security parameter and respond to the transaction request from the requesting client computer, …adjust the number of security parameters with the transaction security system for a predetermined period of time, based on the evaluated transaction parameters, if fraud is suspect, by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location to facilitate payment only in that region, wherein the processor is programmed to provide comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters, send an approval code back to the merchant upon a favorable, who would complete the transaction, the adjusting being for a predetermined period of time and with security parameters to control or screen subsequent transactions,
a server configured to transmit the request over a communications line, ... wherein the server is configured to download an application to perform an analysis of the first and second security parameters to detect fraud
Reed teaches:
the system configured to protect funds allocated for disaster relief to be protected against garnishment, attachment, seizure, and levy by maintaining the account in the name of a source of funds, rather than in the name of the user ((Reed) in at least para 0004; wherein the prior art teaches “Real time account control that allows only eligible and authorized items to be purchased using the account is desirable… in the recent hurricane disasters, organizations gave individuals in need debit cards having an amount of money in the account associated with the debit card. Those debit cards were to ideally have been used to purchase food, medicine, lodging, and other items and services that were necessary to allow the individual in need to get back on their feet. Had the debit card account been controlled to only permit the purchase of certain items or types of items, then the accounts could not have been used to purchase jewelry and other non-essential items. By identifying eligible items at the store level by category or department, or even at the individual item level, and by identifying items authorized for purchase at the item or category level by the person or entity giving out the card, and by setting up the system described herein, the cards could be restricted to only purchase eligible and authorized items)
establishing a first security parameter ((Reed) in at least para 0004 wherein the prior art teaches limiting parameters controlling the uses of purchases to necessary items rather than non-essential items)
receive funds, establish the first and second security parameters, receive transaction parameters, compare the transaction parameter to the first security parameter to evaluate the transaction request, permit the transfer of funds to the account, evaluate transaction requests based on a comparison of security parameters and transaction parameters, … processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters. If the evaluation was favorable, an approval is be sent back to the merchant, who would complete the transaction, … ((Reed) in at least para 0045-0046, para 0056-0059 wherein the prior art teaches merchant receives approval amount and completes transaction) and
the system provides notice of whether the request has been granted or denied by the financial institution to the user at the terminal, the transaction system programmed to either warn the user with a warning message and allow the transaction, or block the transaction with a warning message and display the notice on a client device, wherein the transaction card is part of a plurality of networks; and
Although Reed does not explicitly teach sending an approval/authorization codes if evaluation of the transaction based on parameters and the transaction parameters are favorable, the prior art does teach the POS receiving approved UPS’s and approved amount sent and transmits the sum of cost for authorized items and tax to produce a payment total using the card network for payment completing the transaction. A approval/transaction code as known in the art is alphanumeric code indicating whether a card transaction has been approved, where when a card holders information is provided to the POS for verification and permission to process, and an approval is rendered back to the terminal which informs the merchant of the validity of the transaction in real-time. According to KSR, which the prior art provides some teaching or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention, the common sense rationale, states that such is obvious. The prior art Reed explicitly teaches a transaction process of a user presenting to the merchant POS account card information where the information is used to compare transaction requirements for approval attached to specific accounts for specific product purchases and based on the conditions being met the merchant POS receives an approval with the approved product UPS for the specific account and the POS transmits the sum of cost for authorized items and tax to produce a payment total using the card network for payment completing the transaction. The sending of an approval to the merchant POS explicitly indicates that the transaction has been approved, which suggests based on common knowledge in the art to one of ordinary skill to modify the reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore the prior art provides some teaching that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to arrive at the claimed invention.
Both Hawkins and Reed teach comparing specific account spending conditional parameter attached to the specific account types for specific account transactions in order to approve payment of such account for specific products. Reed teaches the motivation of comparing specific account conditions for approval with the transaction purchases in order to send an approval to the merchant for completing the transaction and then completing the transaction, since the accounts for the transactions have been analyzed and are for specific types of transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to expand the details of the payment for transactions to include an approval at the merchant POS as taught by Reed. Reed teaches the motivation of comparing specific account conditions for approval with the transaction purchases in order to send an approval to the merchant for completing the transaction and then completing the transaction, since the accounts for the transactions have been analyzed and are for specific types of transactions.
Both Hawkins and Reed teach accounts with spending conditional parameter attached to the account transactions. Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify spending conditional parameter of Hawkins to include compensation for uninsured losses as taught by Reed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the spending conditional parameter of Hawkins in this way since Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended.
Brown teaches:
wherein the security parameters are stored in the card ((Brown) in at least Abstract; para 0008, para 0015, para 0017-0020)
Both Hawkins and Brown teach utilizing transaction cards and rules applied to transaction cards in order to identify the user. Brown teaches the motivation of storing security parameters on transaction cards in order to using a single device for use in different markets or regions so that the appropriate set of security parameters may be selected based on location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the storage of parameters for transactions to include storing parameters on the transaction card as taught by Brown since Brown teaches the motivation of storing security parameters on transaction cards in order to using a single device for use in different markets or regions so that the appropriate set of security parameters may be selected based on location
however Nelson teaches:
a geographic location, ((Nelson) in at least para 0031), a monetary value range ((Nelson) in at least para 0014, para 0019, para 0031 ), a transaction mode((Nelson) in at least para 0026; wherein the prior art teaches processing card transactions, billing), an account access parameter ((Nelson) in at least para 0031), wherein the security parameter is merchant category code ((Nelson) in at least para 0013, para 0019), a card verification value code ((Nelson) in at least para 0018; wherein the prior art teaches magnetic stripe which includes the three tracks with track layout includes Card Validation Code (CVC) or CVCL This serves as a cryptographic integrity check on the track contents. Much like a message authentication code, the CVC simplifies the process of authenticating track data when it is received by the issuing bank. It also prevents easy fabrication of credit cards: while track data is relatively predictable given the card number, expiration date and other fie Ids), a geographic location ((Nelson) in at least para 0031), a monetary value range ((Nelson) in at least para 0014, para 0019, para 0031 ), a transaction mode((Nelson) in at least para 0026;wherein the prior art teaches processing card transactions, billing), an account access parameter ((Nelson) in at least para 0031)... a daily upper limit for a maximum debit of funds ((Nelson) in at least para 0003, para 0031);
a server configured to transmit the request over a communication line ((Nelson) in at least FIG. 1 ; para 0028, para 0035)
wherein the processor is programmed to provide comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters, send an approval code back to the merchant upon a favorable…((Nelson) in at least para 0002 wherein the prior art teaches it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant, para 0031-0033 wherein the prior art teaches authorization decision include transaction restrictions including purchase limits, velocity limits, country/geographical limits or any conditions commonly used to control transactions, where if the transaction conditions are meth an authorization code may be associated with transaction information)
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach transmission of data to other electronic systems (Hawkins FIG. 1, Col 20 lines 49-67). Nelson teaches the web servers utilized for communication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the electronic computerized communication system of Hawkins to include a server as taught by Nelson since Nelson teaches the motivation of utilizing web server for communication.
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach controlled accounts whereby the owner of the account sets restrictions on accounts used by non-owners. Although Hawkins does not explicitly cite the conditional parameter for account control as "security parameters", does teach restricted use accounts whereby the user is not the owner of the account and the account holder wants controls applied to insure the accounts are utilized as intended. Nelson teaches the motivation of minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the conditional parameter of Hawkins as a "security parameter" based on the teaching, suggestion and motivation of Hawkins. Furthermore, Nelson provides supporting evidence and motivation (minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access) that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the permutation of security parameters as set forth in the claims, both Hawkins and Nelson contain elements which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some elements with other elements of the same scope and content Nelson provides supporting evidence that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Furthermore, Nelson provides the motivation minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access. Furthermore, the limitation lists with respect to conditions is a Markush group of elements and have been made optional by the applicant. Therefore, additional conditional criteria are simply a permutation of the same concept.
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach applying certain transaction control rules that must be met in order to approve transactions. Nelson teaches the motivation it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant and that transaction restrictions are commonly used to control transactions in order to generate an approval of a transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to expand on the high level approval after evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters of Hawkins to include sending an approval code as taught by Nelson since Nelson teaches the motivation it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant and that transaction restrictions are commonly used to control transactions in order to generate an approval of a transaction
Nelson teaches and provides supporting evidence:
receive funds, establish the first and second security parameters, receive transaction parameters, evaluate transaction requests based on a comparison of security parameters and transaction parameters ((Nelson) in at least para 0013-0014; wherein the prior art teaches authorization request is matched against approved type of merchant, exemplary based on service with travel merchants)
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach controlled accounts whereby the owner of the account sets restrictions on accounts used by non-owners. Although Hawkins does not explicitly cite the conditional parameter for account control as "security parameters", does teach restricted use accounts whereby the user is not the owner of the account and the account holder wants controls applied to insure the accounts are utilized as intended. Nelson teaches the motivation of minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the conditional parameter of Hawkins as a "security parameter" based on the teaching, suggestion and motivation of Hawkins. Furthermore, Nelson provides supporting evidence and motivation (minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access) that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the permutation of security parameters as set forth in the claims, both Hawkins and Nelson contain elements which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some elements with other elements of the same scope and content. Nelson provides supporting evidence that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Furthermore, Nelson provides the motivation minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access.
Golan teaches:
the processor providing a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters and that regulates transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters and configured to adjust a security parameter and respond to the transaction request from the requesting client computer. ((Golan) in at least para 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time; para 0037, para 0050-0051 wherein the prior art teaches using sets of principles to access risk which include comparing techniques where the principles include security parameters (identification data sources) and transaction parameters (patterns of activities or deviation from behavior transactions), para 0056-0057 )
adjust the number of security parameters with the transaction security system, for a predetermined period of time based on the evaluated transaction parameters, if fraud is suspect, by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location to facilitate payment only in that region, processor is programmed to provide comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters, …, the adjusting being for a predetermined period of time and with security parameters to control or screen subsequent transactions, (Golan) in at least para 0023 wherein the prior art teaches processor executing method, para 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time; para 0037 wherein the prior art teaches based on risk score adding authentication step of postponing authentication to a later time, para 0038 wherein the prior art teaches functionality decision/other modules may be executed by using software executing on processors, para 0039 wherein the prior art teaches risk score based on velocity checks, ip geo-location, para 0050 wherein the prior art teaches transaction risk assessment risk list includes ip addresses and derived data (location), address, transaction amount, time in day, day in week, user typical timing (hour and/or day) of transactions, velocity of transactions, for example if 99.9% of users of specific merchant in US, then transaction in France riskier, if velocity is above a certain threshold, with a specific IP address (IP geo-location data such as postal code, para 0056-0057 wherein the prior art teaches lowering a required threshold (parameter) and only ask for additional data when risk is not low, adapt the security level requirements, where assessment risk includes postal code and teaches authentication level requirements include time sensitive secrets asking users to provide a secret that changes in time) and using the security parameters to control or screen subsequent transaction ((Golan) in at least para 0024 wherein the prior art teaches risk parameters control the level of authentication for access, para 0025 wherein the prior art teaches the risk level parameters determines whether to deny transaction; para 0027 wherein the prior art teaches risk level low enough that user/transaction data may be collected; wherein the prior art teaches the risks level above a threshold user required to provide security details to initiate a transaction).
Both Hawkins and Golan teach conditions applied to transaction accounts. Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the terms and conditions for account use as set forth by Hawkins to include adjusting authentication requirements as taught by Golan since Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events.
however Morea teaches:
adjust the security parameters with the transaction security system, based on the evaluated transaction parameters, if fraud is suspect, wherein the security parameters are adjusted by the financial institution for a predetermined period of time, ((Morea) in at least Col 4 lines 48-67, Col 4 lines 1-11, Col 11 lines 40-67, Col 12 lines 1-16; Claim 11 - 12, Claim 19, Claim 23); and
a server configured to transmit the request over a communications line, the transaction request configured to be transmitted along the communications line to the financial institution, the request having transaction parameters, wherein the server is configured to download an application to perform an analysis of the first and second security parameters to detect fraud (Morea) in at least Abstract; Col 2 lines 15-45, Col 3 lines 55-60, Col 6 lines 25-40, Col 7 lines 5-20, 35-44, Col 9 lines 25-50, Col 13 lines 22-43, Col 14 lines 1-18, )
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach transmission of data to other electronic systems (Hawkins FIG. 1, Col 20 lines 49-67). Morea teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the electronic communication system of Hawkins to include the teaching of Morea since teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices
Both Hawkins and Morea teach conditional parameters directed toward transaction entities implemented in a transaction process. The prior art Morea teaches applying conditions and adjusting conditions based on threshold with the motivation to prevent accounts being used for an unintended purpose. Although Morea is directed toward a different scope in that it teaches risk categories directed toward business risk of the merchant, the prior art include similar or analogous device/method in that security parameters are applied. Morea teaches design incentives or market forces of adjusting security measures based on the risk category of a transaction entity which would have prompted adaptation of the known device/method. Therefore, Morea is directed toward the base method/device of applying condition/security measures toward a transaction entity. The prior art Hawkins contains a base device/method upon the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Therefore, the prior art, Morea contains a comparable device (method or product that is not the same as the base device) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known "improvement' technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill i n the art, The differences between the claimed invention, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In reference to Claim 18:
The combination of Hawkins, Brown, Nelson, Reed, Golan and Morea discloses the limitations of independent claim 17. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18:
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the account is designed to ...
Hawkins does not explicitly teach
...compensate for uninsured losses
however Reed teaches:
• ...compensate for uninsured losses ((Reed) para 0004, para 0005 lines 1-6)
Both Hawkins and Reed teach accounts with spending conditional parameter attached to the account transactions. Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the spending conditional parameter of Hawkins to include compensation for uninsured losses as taught by Reed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the spending conditional parameter of Hawkins in this way since Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended.
Examiner Notes that the prior art US Pub No. 2006/0113376 by Reed also provides teaching of a source account that is not owned by the user.
In reference to Claim 19:
The combination of Hawkins, Brown, Nelson, Reed, Golan and Morea discloses the limitations of independent claim 17. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19:
(Original) The system of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the account is allocated for...
Hawkins does not explicitly teach,
• ...disaster relief
however Reed teaches:
• ...disaster relief ((Reed) para 0004, para 0005 lines 1-6).
Both Hawkins and Reed teach transaction accounts with spending conditional parameter attached to the specified account transactions. Reed teaches the need to limit specified purpose accounts so that the funds are used as intended. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify specified accounts of Hawkins to include disaster relief accounts as taught by Reed. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to modify the specified accounts of Hawkins in this way since Reed teaches the need to limit specified purpose accounts so that the funds are used as intended.
Examiner Notes that the prior art US Pub No. 2006/0113376 by Reed also provides teaching of a source account that is not owned by the user.
In reference to Claim 21:
The combination of Hawkins, Brown, Nelson, Reed, Golan and Morea discloses the limitations of independent claim 17. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 21:
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein at least one sources ...
Hawkins does not explicitly teach,
• ...a federal, state or local government agency
however Reed teaches:
• ...a federal, state or local government agency ((Reed) para 0004 lines 5-7)
Both Hawkins and Reed teach transaction accounts with spending conditional parameter attached to the specified account transactions. Reed teaches the need to limit specified purpose accounts so that the funds are used as intended. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify specified accounts of Hawkins to include disaster relief accounts as taught by Reed. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to expand the specified accounts of Hawkins in this way since Reed teaches the need to limit specified purpose accounts so that the funds are used as intended.
Examiner Notes that the prior art US Pub No. 2006/0113376 by Reed also provides teaching of a source account that is not owned by the user
In reference to Claim 24:
The combination of Hawkins, Brown, Nelson, Reed, Golan and Morea discloses the limitations of independent claim 17. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 24:
(Original) The system of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the system is configured to
Hawkins does not explicitly teach,
• ... adjust the security parameter for a predetermined period of time
Golen teaches:
... adjust the security parameter for a predetermined period of time ((Golan) in at least para 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time; para 0037, para 0050, para 0056-0057 )
Both Hawkins and Golan teach conditions applied to transaction accounts. Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the terms and conditions for account use as set forth by Hawkins to include adjusting authentication requirements as taught by Golan since Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events.
In reference to Claim 28:
The combination of Hawkins, Brown, Nelson, Golan and Morea discloses the limitations of independent claim 17. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 28:
(Original) The system of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the transaction card...
Hawkins does not explicitly teach,
...is part of one network
Nelson teaches:
...is part of one network ‘((Nelson) in at least para 0027)
Both Hawkins and Nelson are directed toward payment networks. Nelson teaches the motivation of proprietary card network as well as open networks are used to transmit payment card authorization. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the payment networks of Hawkins to include one network as taught by Nelson since Nelson teaches the motivation of proprietary card network as well as open networks are used to transmit payment card authorization,
In reference to Claim 32:
The combination of Hawkins, Brown, Nelson, Reed, Golan and Morea discloses the limitations of independent claim 17. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 32:
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17), wherein the system;
permits the placement of additional funds to the account ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1 and associated text- see Col 20 lines 30-Col 32 lines 1-18; FIG. 2A and associated text- see Col 32 lines 19-56, FIG. 2D and associated text- see Col 32 lines 59-col 34 lines 1-29; wherein the prior art teaches reimbursing accounts for allowed purchases)
Claim 27 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,464,859 B1 by Hawkins (Hawkins), in view of US Pub No. 2005/0164737 A1 by Brown (Brown) in view of US Pub No. 2006/0113376 Al by Reed et al (Reed) in view of US Pub No. 20050205662 A1 by Nelson (Nelson), and further in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0097320 A1 by Golan et al. (Golan) and in view of US Patent No. 7,103,570 B1 by Morea et al. (Morea) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2004/0167822 A1 by Chasen et al (Chasen)
In reference to Claim 27:
The combination of Hawkins, Brown, Nelson, Reed, Golan and Morea discloses the limitations of independent claim 17. Nelson further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 27:
(Original) The system of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the system is configured to...
Hawkins does not explicitly teach:
• ...charge a fee for the use of the transaction card
however Chasen teaches:
• ...charge a fee for the use of the transaction card ((Chasen) in at least para 0043)
Both Hawkins and Chasen teach transaction systems utilizing credit cards. Chasen teaches the motivation of a convenience fee for online transactions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify transaction process of Hawkins to include transaction fees as taught by Chasen. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to expand the transaction process of Hawkins in this way since Chasen teaches the motivation of a convenience fee for online transactions.
Claim 31 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,464,859 B1 by Hawkins, in view of US Pub No. 2005/0164737 A1 by Brown (Brown) in view of US Pub No. 2006/0113376 Al by Reed et al (Reed) in view of US Pub No. 20050205662 A1 by Nelson (Nelson), and further in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0097320 A1 by Golan et al. (Golan) and in view of US Patent No. 7,103,570 B1 by Morea et al. (Morea)
In reference to Claim 31:
Hawkins teaches:
(Currently Amended) A computer-based transaction security system ((Hawkins) in at least Col 7 lines 55-57), comprising:
a transaction card for an account, the account funded by a plurality of sources and issued to a user with an initial amount of funds allocated to the account through a financial institution ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 2A and associated text; Col 2 lines 43-67 wherein the prior art teaches registering purchase accounts; Col 3 lines 48-67; wherein the prior art teaches corporate expense account, client expense account employer's expense account, etc...] Col 4 lines 1-25 wherein the prior art teaches plurality of reimbursement accounts] Col 8 line 60-67, Col 19 lines 1-12), the card carrying first and second security parameters [conditional parameter] established by the plurality of sources,.., wherein the sources are not owned by the user ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 43-67, Col 3 lines 38-48, Col 4 lines 1-26, wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of reimbursement accounts] Col 6 lines 20-34, Col 8 lines 60-67; wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of conditional parameter/condition sets] Col 20 lines 46-67; Col 22 lines 16-67; wherein the prior art teaches registering an account for reimbursement in order to control reimbursement and identifying purchases] Col 9 lines 50-67)and wherein at least one of the security parameters is merchant category code, a card verification value code, geographic location, a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, or a class of services, before establishing a security parameter, ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 27-48 wherein the prior art teaches total amount on purchases] Col 4 lines 27-50; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases)]
a terminal at a point of transaction, the terminal that initiates a transaction request for a transaction, from a requesting client computer ((Hawkins) in at least Col 20 lines 20-29, Col 23 lines 6-36, 51-67, Col 24 lines 1-16);
a processor that monitors and regulates transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters and adjusts a security parameter and respond to the transaction request from the requesting client computer ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 2D ref # 258-262; Col 4 lines 1-10, Col 6 lines 13-17, Col 9 lines 54-60, Col 13 lines 44-58, Col 23 lines 50-67 wherein the prior art teaches tracking transactions; Col 26 lines 1-26, Col 35 lines 5-22), and
receives funds ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 2B, FIG. 2D; Col 4 lines 1-13, Col 5 lines 55-Col 6 lines 1-20, Col 8 lines 20-38, Col 32 lines 57-Col 33 lines 1-13, lines 58-Col 34 lines 1-13),, establish security parameters ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 43-67, Col 3 lines 38-48, Col 4 lines 1-26, Col 6 lines 20-34, Col 8 lines 60-67; wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of conditional sets] Col 20 lines 46-67; Col 22 lines 16-67; wherein the prior art teaches registering an account for reimbursement in order to control reimbursement and identifying purchases] Col 9 lines 50-67; Col 14 lines 51-61, Col 18 lines 1-3, Col 19 lines 1-55, Col 22 lines 1-15 wherein the prior art teaches registering an account for reimbursement in order to control reimbursement and identifying purchases; Col 9 lines 50-67),, receive transaction parameters ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1 - see Col 20 lines 30-Col 32 lines 1-18; Col 3 lines 5-26, Col 5 lines 10-55, Col 8 lines 4-10, lines 50-54, Col 10 lines 20-33, lines 50-60, Col 12 lines 32-52, Col 15 lines 15-22, Col 26 lines 35-50, Col 27 lines 20-55, Col 31 lines 50-67), require certification for the transaction request ((Hawkins) in at least Col 36 lines 29-50), secure an agreement from a merchant ((Hawkins) in at least Col 20 lines 46-67, Col 22 lines 16-36) regarding a … a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, or a class of services, before establishing a security parameter ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 27-48 wherein the prior art teaches total amount on purchases, Col 4 lines 27-50; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases; Examiner notes the limitations are repetitive)), permit the transfer of funds to the account ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 2B, FIG. 2D; Col 4 lines 1-13, Col 5 lines 55-Col 6 lines 1-20, Col 8 lines 20-38, Col 32 lines 57-Col 33 lines 1-13, lines 58-Col 34 lines 1-13), evaluate the transaction request based on a comparison of security parameters and transaction parameters ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 15-26, Col 4 lines 27-50; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases; Col 5 lines 9-34, Col 8 lines 16-67), …provide notice of whether the request has been granted or denied to a user at the terminal by the financial institution ((Hawkins) in at least Col 9 lines 49-Col 10 lines 1-13)…and the transaction system programmed to either warn the user with a warning message and allow the transaction or block the transaction with a warning message ((Hawkins) in at least Col 6 lines 9-27, Col 9 lines 2-10, 61-67, Col 10 lines 3-13, Col 28 lines 59-Col 29 lines 1-13, Col 30 lines 30-65, Col 31 lines 1-21, Col 33 lines 39-48, , Col 36 lines 29-50),
a server transmits the data over a communications line, the transaction request transmitted along the communications line to the financial institution ((Hawkins) in at least Col 20 lines 20-29, Col 23 lines 6-36, 51-67, Col 24 lines 1-16), the request having transaction parameters ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 5-26, Col 5 lines 10-55, Col 12 lines 32-52, Col 27 lines 20-55) wherein the transaction comprises a first balance and a second balance, and wherein the first security parameter is applied toward the first balance, the second security parameter is applied toward the second balance ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 16-67 wherein the prior art teaches "means for conducting the at least one purchase transaction by the user using the registered purchase account at a registered vendor; and/or means for settling payment with the registered vendor for the at least one purchase transaction using an account other than the reimbursement account. The authorization implementing means can comprise means for facilitating authorization for reimbursement to at least one settlement account for the identified reimbursable purchases”); …and
display the notice on a client device ((Hawkins) in at least Col 28 lines 59-67, Col 30 lines 1-25, 30-65, Col 31 lines 1-21, Col 36 lines 29-50);
the system configured to protect funds allocated....by maintaining the account in the name of the source of funds, rather than in the name of the user ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1, Col 1 lines 63-Col 2 lines 1-9, Col 3 lines 49-67, Col 7 lines 3-30 wherein the prior art teaches the reimbursement account an expense account not in the name of the user but instead the employer/3rd party entity; Col 30 lines 2-15, wherein the transaction card is part of a plurality of networks((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1 wherein the prior art illustrates plurality of purchase accounts with a plurality of merchants; Col 1 lines 13-33 wherein the prior art teaches card can be both credit/debit/HSA card, Col 3 lines 15-24 wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of reimbursement source accounts; Col 4 lines 20-27, Col 17 lines 28-35, Col 19 lines 40-44, Col 24 lines 43-46 wherein the prior art teaches vendors registered with bankcards use merchant acquirer, payment processor and bankcard associated network, Col 25 lines 5-11).
Hawkins does not explicitly teach
• wherein the security parameters are stored in the card
providing a processor that regulates transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters and configured to adjust a security parameter and respond to the transaction request from the requesting client computer,
security parameter
• a geographic location
• a daily upper limit for a maximum debt of funds
• a server
a server configured to transmit the data over a communications line, ..., wherein the server is downloads an application to perform an analysis of the first and second security parameters to detect fraud
adjust with the transaction security system, based on the evaluated transaction parameters, the number of security parameters for a predetermined period of time if fraud is suspect, by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location to facilitate payment only in that region, wherein the processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters, send an approval code back to the merchant upon a favorable, who would complete the transaction, wherein the security parameters are adjusted by the financial institution, …,
the system configured to protect funds allocated for disaster relief against garnishment, attachment, seizure, and levy [directed toward intended use] by maintaining the account in the name of a source of funds, rather than in the name of the user.
however Nelson teaches:
security parameter ((Nelson) in at least para 0013-0014, para 0030-0031; wherein the prior art teaches conditions controlling purchases in order to minimize potential misuse of company purchasing cards which a plurality of purchasing features)]
a geographic location ((Nelson) in at least para 0031)...
a daily upper limit for a maximum debit of funds ((Nelson) in at least para 0003, para 0031)
a server configured to transmit data over a communication line ((Nelson) in at least FIG. 1; para 0028, para 0035)
wherein the processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters, send an approval code back to the merchant upon a favorable, ((Nelson) in at least para 0002 wherein the prior art teaches it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant, para 0031-0033 wherein the prior art teaches authorization decision include transaction restrictions including purchase limits, velocity limits, country/geographical limits or any conditions commonly used to control transactions, where if the transaction conditions are meth an authorization code may be associated with transaction information)
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach transmission of data to other electronic systems (Hawkins FIG. 1, Col 20 lines 49-67). Nelson teaches the web servers utilized for communication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the electronic computerized communication system of Hawkins to include a server as taught by Nelson since Nelson teaches the motivation of utilizing web server for communication.
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach controlled accounts whereby the owner of the account sets restrictions on accounts used by non-owners. Although Hawkins does not explicitly cite the conditional parameter for account control as "security parameters", does teach restricted use accounts whereby the user is not the owner of the account and the account holder wants controls applied to insure the accounts are utilized as intended. Nelson teaches the motivation of minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the conditional parameter of Hawkins as a "security parameter" based on the teaching, suggestion and motivation of Hawkins. Furthermore, Nelson provides supporting evidence and motivation (minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access) that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the permutation of security parameters as set forth in the claims, both Hawkins and Nelson contain elements which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some elements with other elements of the same scope and content. Nelson provides supporting evidence that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Furthermore, Nelson provides the motivation minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access.
Furthermore, the limitation list with respect to conditions is a Markush group of elements and has been made optional by the applicant. Therefore, additional conditional criteria are simply a permutation of the same concept.
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach applying certain transaction control rules that must be met in order to approve transactions. Nelson teaches the motivation it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant and that transaction restrictions are commonly used to control transactions in order to generate an approval of a transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to expand on the high level approval after evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters of Hawkins to include sending an approval code as taught by Nelson since Nelson teaches the motivation it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant and that transaction restrictions are commonly used to control transactions in order to generate an approval of a transaction
Reed teaches:
the system configured to protect funds allocated for disaster relief against garnishment, attachment, seizure, and levy [directed toward intended use] by maintaining the account in the name of a source of funds, rather than in the name of the user. ((Reed) in at least para 0004, wherein the prior art teaches “Real time account control that allows only eligible and authorized items to be purchased using the account is desirable… in the recent hurricane disasters, organizations gave individuals in need debit cards having an amount of money in the account associated with the debit card. Those debit cards were to ideally have been used to purchase food, medicine, lodging, and other items and services that were necessary to allow the individual in need to get back on their feet. Had the debit card account been controlled to only permit the purchase of certain items or types of items, then the accounts could not have been used to purchase jewelry and other non-essential items. By identifying eligible items at the store level by category or department, or even at the individual item level, and by identifying items authorized for purchase at the item or category level by the person or entity giving out the card, and by setting up the system described herein, the cards could be restricted to only purchase eligible and authorized items)
establishing a first security parameter ((Reed) in at least para 0004 wherein the prior art teaches limiting parameters controlling the uses of purchases to necessary items rather than non-essential items)
processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters. If the evaluation was favorable, an approval code is sent back to the merchant, who would complete the transaction,… ((Reed) in at least para 0045-0046, para 0056-0059 wherein the prior art teaches merchant receives approval amount and completes transaction)
Although Reed does not explicitly teach sending an approval/authorization codes if evaluation of the transaction based on parameters and the transaction parameters are favorable, the prior art does teach the POS receiving approved UPS’s and approved amount sent and transmits the sum of cost for authorized items and tax to produce a payment total using the card network for payment completing the transaction. A approval/transaction code as known in the art is alphanumeric code indicating whether a card transaction has been approved, where when a card holders information is provided to the POS for verification and permission to process, and an approval is rendered back to the terminal which informs the merchant of the validity of the transaction in real-time. According to KSR, which the prior art provides some teaching or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention, the common sense rationale, states that such is obvious. The prior art Reed explicitly teaches a transaction process of a user presenting to the merchant POS account card information where the information is used to compare transaction requirements for approval attached to specific accounts for specific product purchases and based on the conditions being met the merchant POS receives an approval with the approved product UPS for the specific account and the POS transmits the sum of cost for authorized items and tax to produce a payment total using the card network for payment completing the transaction. The sending of an approval to the merchant POS explicitly indicates that the transaction has been approved, which suggests based on common knowledge in the art to one of ordinary skill to modify the reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore the prior art provides some teaching that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to arrive at the claimed invention.
Both Hawkins and Reed teach comparing specific account spending conditional parameter attached to the specific account types for specific account transactions in order to approve payment of such account for specific products. Reed teaches the motivation of comparing specific account conditions for approval with the transaction purchases in order to send an approval to the merchant for completing the transaction and then completing the transaction, since the accounts for the transactions have been analyzed and are for specific types of transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to expand the details of the payment for transactions to include an approval at the merchant POS as taught by Reed. Reed teaches the motivation of comparing specific account conditions for approval with the transaction purchases in order to send an approval to the merchant for completing the transaction and then completing the transaction, since the accounts for the transactions have been analyzed and are for specific types of transactions.
Both Hawkins and Reed teach accounts with spending conditional parameter attached to the specific account types for specific account transactions. Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify spending conditional parameter of Hawkins to include compensation for uninsured losses as taught by Reed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the spending conditional parameter of Hawkins in this way since Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended.
Golan teaches:
a processor that regulates transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters and configured to adjust a security parameter and respond to the transaction request from the requesting client computer ((Golan) in at least para 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time; para 0037, para 0050, para 0056-0057 )
adjusting with the transaction security system ,((Golan) in at least para 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time; para 0037, para 0050, para 0056-0057), the number of security parameters by the financial institution if fraud if suspect, by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location to facilitate payment only in that region, processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters. …, and the security parameters screening subsequent transactions; ((Golan) in at least (Golan) in at least para 0023 wherein the prior art teaches processor executing method, para 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time; para 0037 wherein the prior art teaches based on risk score adding authentication step of postponing authentication to a later time, para 0038 wherein the prior art teaches functionality decision/other modules may be executed by using software executing on processors, para 0039 wherein the prior art teaches risk score based on velocity checks, ip geo-location, para 0050 wherein the prior art teaches transaction risk assessment risk list includes ip addresses and derived data (location), address, transaction amount, time in day, day in week, user typical timing (hour and/or day) of transactions, velocity of transactions, for example if 99.9% of users of specific merchant in US, then transaction in France riskier, if velocity is above a certain threshold, with a specific IP address (IP geo-location data such as postal code, para 0056-0057 wherein the prior art teaches lowering a required threshold (parameter) and only ask for additional data when risk is not low, adapt the security level requirements, where assessment risk includes postal code and teaches authentication level requirements include time sensitive secrets asking users to provide a secret that changes in time)) and using the security parameters to control or screen subsequent transaction ((Golan) in at least para 0024 wherein the prior art teaches risk parameters control the level of authentication for access, para 0025 wherein the prior art teaches the risk level parameters determines whether to deny transaction; para 0027 wherein the prior art teaches risk level low enough that user/transaction data may be collected; wherein the prior art teaches the risks level above a threshold user required to provide security details to initiate a transaction).
Both Hawkins and Golan teach conditions applied to transaction accounts. Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the terms and conditions for account use as set forth by Hawkins to include adjusting authentication requirements as taught by Golan since Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events.
Both Hawkins and Golan teach conditions applied to transaction accounts. Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the terms and conditions for account use as set forth by Hawkins to include adjusting authentication requirements as taught by Golan since Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events.
however Morea teaches:
adjust with the transaction security system, based on the evaluated transaction parameters, the security parameters for a predetermined period of time if fraud is suspect, wherein the security parameters are adjusted by the financial institution,, ((Morea) in at least Col 4 lines 48-67, Col 4 lines 1-11, Col 11 lines 40-67, Col 12 lines 1-16; Claim 11 -12, Claim 19, Claim 23); and
a server configured to transmit the data over a communications line, ..., wherein the server is downloads an application to perform an analysis of the first and second security parameters to detect fraud (Morea) in at least Abstract; Col 2 lines 15-45, Col 3 lines 55-60, Col 6 lines 25-40, Col 7 lines 5-20, 35-44, Col 9 lines 25-50, Col 13 lines 22-43, Col 14 lines 1-18, )
Both Hawkins and Morea teach transmission of data to other electronic systems (Hawkins FIG. 1, Col 20 lines 49-67). Morea teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the electronic communication system of Hawkins to include the teaching of Morea since teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices
Both Hawkins and Morea teach conditional parameters directed toward transaction entities implemented in a transaction process. The prior art Morea teaches applying conditions and adjusting conditions based on threshold with the motivation to prevent accounts being used for an unintended purpose. Although Morea is directed toward a different scope in that it teaches risk categories directed toward business risk of the merchant, the prior art include similar or analogous device/method in that security parameters are applied. Morea teaches design incentives or market forces of adjusting security measures based on the risk category of a transaction entity which would have prompted adaptation of the known device/method. Therefore, Morea is directed toward the base method/device of applying condition/security measures toward a transaction entity. The prior art Hawkins contains a base device/method upon the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Therefore, the prior art, Morea contains a comparable device (method or product that is not the same as the base device) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known "improvement' technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, The differences between the claimed invention, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Brown teaches:
wherein the security parameters are stored in the card ((Brown) in at least Abstract; para 0008, para 0015, para 0017-0020)
Both Hawkins and Brown teach utilizing transaction cards and rules applied to transaction cards in order to identify the user. Brown teaches the motivation of storing security parameters on transaction cards in order to using a single device for use in different markets or regions so that the appropriate set of security parameters may be selected based on location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the storage of parameters for transactions to include storing parameters on the transaction card as taught by Brown since Brown teaches the motivation of storing security parameters on transaction cards in order to using a single device for use in different markets or regions so that the appropriate set of security parameters may be selected based on location.
Claim 33 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,464,859 B1 by Hawkins, in view of US Pub No. 2005/0164737 A1 by Brown (Brown) in view of US Pub No. 2006/0113376 Al by Reed et al (Reed) in view of US Pub No. 20050205662 A1 by Nelson (Nelson), and further in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0097320 A1 by Golan et al. (Golan) and in view of US Patent No. 7,103,570 B1 by Morea et al. (Morea)
In reference to Claim 33:
Hawkins teaches:
(Currently Amended) A method for controlling financial transactions ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 10-42), comprising:
providing [accessing] a transaction security system including a processor, an allocated account debited by a first security parameters and second security parameter, …((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 16-40, Col 8 lines 17-38)establishing a first security parameter[conditional parameter] by a financial institution to debit an account ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 43-67, Col 3 lines 38- 48, Col 4 lines 1-26, Col 6 lines 20-34, Col 8 lines 60- 67; wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of conditional parameters sets] Col 14 lines 51-61, Col 18 lines 1- 3, Col 19 lines 1 -55,, Col 20 lines 46-67; Col 22; wherein the prior art teaches registering an account for reimbursement in order to control reimbursement and identifying purchases] Col 9 lines 50-67), wherein the security parameter [conditional parameter] is ...a monetary value range ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 27-48 wherein the prior art teaches total amount on purchases), a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, or a class of services ((Hawkins) in at least Col 4 lines 27-50; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases);
wherein funds are allocated to the account by a plurality of sources that established the security parameter [conditional parameter] and the plurality of sources provides an initial amount of funds to a user through a financial institution, wherein the sources are not owned by the user ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 43-67 wherein the prior art teaches registering purchase accounts; Col 3 lines 48-67; wherein the prior art teaches corporate expense account, client expense account, employer's expense account, etc... Col 4 lines 1 -25 wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of reimbursement accounts] Col 8 line 60-67) and wherein the security parameter [conditional parameters designed to determine whether to authorize a transaction based on a type of good or service subject to the financial transaction and an agreement ((Hawkins) in at least Col 20 lines 46-67, Col 22 lines 16-36) is secured from a merchant regarding a monetary value range, a transaction mode, an account access parameter, a class of goods, or a class of services, before establishing a security parameter [conditional parameter] ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 27-48 wherein the prior art teaches total amount on purchases; Col 4 lines 1-25 wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of reimbursement accounts] Col 20 lines 46-67, Col 22 lines 16-36);
issuing the transaction card to the user, the transaction card carrying data identifying the security parameters [conditional parameter] ...((Hawkins) in at least Abstract; FIG.1 and associated text; FIG. 2A and associated text; Col 2 lines 17-43, Col 3 lines 5-26, Col 4 lines 1- 26, Col 6 lines 9-34, Col 23 lines 50-67);
monitoring the transactions made with the card ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 2D ref # 258-262; Col 4 lines 1-10, Col 6 lines 13-17, Col 9 lines 54-60, Col 13 lines 44-58, Col 23 lines 50-67 wherein the prior art teaches tracking transactions; Col 26 lines 1-26, Col 35 lines 5-22);
receiving a transaction request from a terminal from a requesting client computer ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1 ; Col 3 lines 5-26, Col 5 lines 10-55, Col 8 lines 4-10, lines 50-54, Col 10 lines 20-33, lines 50-60, Col 12 lines 32-52, Col 15 lines 15-22, Col 26 lines 35-50, Col 27 lines 20-55, Col 31 lines 50-67),
transmitting the data …over a communication line, the transaction request configured to be transmitted along the communications line to the financial institution ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1 ; Col 3 lines 5-26, Col 5 lines 10-55, Col 8 lines 4-10, lines 50-54, Col 10 lines 20-33, lines 50-60, Col 12 lines 32-52, Col 15 lines 15-22, Col 26 lines 35-50, Col 27 lines 20-55, Col 31 lines 50-67))...;
comparing the transaction parameter to the first security parameter [conditional parameter] by a processor to evaluate the transaction request wherein the transaction request is evaluated based on the type of good or service subject to the financial transaction ((Hawkins) in at least Col 3 lines 15-26, Col 4 lines 27-50; wherein the prior art teaches registered vendor is limited based on identified purchases; Col 5 lines 9-34, Col 8 lines 16-67);
determining whether to process the transaction request for a transaction by a processor, wherein the transaction comprises a balance and the parameter is applied toward the balance, ... ((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 16-67 wherein the prior art teaches "means for conducting the at least one purchase transaction by the user using the registered purchase account at a registered vendor; and/or means for settling payment with the registered vendor for the at least one purchase transaction using an account other than the reimbursement account. The authorization implementing means can comprise means for facilitating authorization for reimbursement to at least one settlement account for the identified reimbursable purchases”)]
permitting the transfer of funds to the account ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 2B, FIG. 2D; Col 4 lines 1-13, Col 5 lines 55-Col 6 lines 1-20, Col 8 lines 20-38, Col 32 lines 57-Col 33 lines 1-13, lines 58-Col 34 lines 1-13), providing notice of whether the request has been granted or denied to a user at the terminal at the financial institution ((Hawkins) in at least Col 28 lines 59-67, Col 30 lines 1 -25, 39-65, Col 31 lines 1 -21, Col 36 lines 29-50) and displaying the notice on a client ((Hawkins) in at least Col 31 lines 16-35), the transaction system programmed to either warn the user with a warning message and allow the transaction or block the transaction with a warning message ((Hawkins) in at least Col 6 lines 9-27, Col 9 lines 2-10, 61-67, Col 10 lines 3-13, Col 28 lines 59-Col 29 lines 1-13, Col 30 lines 30-65, Col 31 lines 1-21, Col 33 lines 39-48, , Col 36 lines 29-50),, and displaying the notice on the client device ((Hawkins) in at least Col 31 lines 16-35), the system configured such that funds allocated ...by maintaining the account in the name of a source of funds, rather than in the name of the user ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1, Col 1 lines 63-Col 2 lines 1-9, Col 3 lines 49-67, Col 7 lines 3-30 wherein the prior art teaches the reimbursement account an expense account not in the name of the user but instead the employer/3rd party entity; Col 30 lines 2-15), wherein the transaction card is part of a plurality of networks ((Hawkins) in at least FIG. 1 wherein the prior art illustrates plurality of purchase accounts with a plurality of merchants; Col 1 lines 13-33 wherein the prior art teaches card can be both credit/debit/HSA card, Col 3 lines 15-24 wherein the prior art teaches a plurality of reimbursement source accounts; Col 4 lines 20-27, Col 17 lines 28-35, Col 19 lines 40-44, Col 24 lines 43-46 wherein the prior art teaches vendors registered with bankcards use merchant acquirer, payment processor and bankcard associated network, Col 25 lines 5-11).
Hawkins does not explicitly teach
providing [accessing] a transaction security system including …and a server…((Hawkins) in at least Col 2 lines 16-40, Col 8 lines 17-38) establishing a security parameter
• wherein the security parameters are stored in the card
regulating with a processor transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters and configured to adjust a security parameter and respond to the transaction request from the requesting client computer,
wherein the security parameter is merchant category code, a card verification value code, a geographic location, , ...a daily upper limit for a maximum debit of fund
transmitting the data with a server over a communications line, .. .wherein the server is configured to download an application to perform an analysis of the first and second security parameters to detect fraud
…wherein the transaction comprises a balance and the parameter is applied toward the balance, and the balance is protected against garnishment, seizure, or levy;
adjusting, with the transaction security system, based on the evaluated transaction parameters, the security parameters for a predetermined period of time by the financial institution if fraud is suspect, by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location to facilitate payment only in that region, wherein the processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters, send an approval code back to the merchant upon a favorable who would complete the transaction, the adjusting being for a predetermined period of time and with applied security parameters to control or screen subsequent transactions;
the system protects funds allocated for disaster relief are protected against garnishment, attachment, seizure, and levy [directed toward intended use] by maintaining the account in the name of a source of funds, rather than in the name of the user.
however Nelson teaches:
providing [accessing] a transaction security system including a processor, an allocated account debited by a first security parameters and second security parameter, and a server ((Nelson) in at least para 0025-2028)…establishing a security parameter ((Nelson) in at least para 0013-0014, para 0030-0031; wherein the prior art teaches conditions controlling purchases in order to minimize potential misuse of company purchasing cards which a plurality of purchasing features)]...
wherein the security parameter is merchant category code ((Nelson) in at least para 0013, para 0019), a card verification value code ((Nelson) in at least para 0018; wherein the prior art teaches magnetic stripe which includes the three tracks with track layout includes Card Validation Code (CVC) or CVCL Which serves as a cryptographic integrity check on the track contents. Much like a message authentication code, the CVC simplifies the process of authenticating track data when it is received by the issuing bank. It also prevents easy fabrication of credit cards: while track data is relatively predictable given the card number, expiration date and other fields), a geographic location ((Nelson) in at least para 0031 ), a monetary value range ((Nelson) in at least para 0014, para 0019, para 0031 ), a transaction mode((Nelson) in at least para 0026; wherein the prior art teaches processing card transactions, billing), an account access parameter ((Nelson) in at least para 0031)... a daily upper limit for a maximum debit of funds ((Nelson) in at least para 0003, para 0031) • providing a server((Nelson) in at least FIG. 1; para 0028, para 0035)
wherein the processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters, send an approval code back to the merchant upon a favorable who would complete the transaction ((Nelson) in at least para 0002 wherein the prior art teaches it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant, para 0031-0033 wherein the prior art teaches authorization decision include transaction restrictions including purchase limits, velocity limits, country/geographical limits or any conditions commonly used to control transactions, where if the transaction conditions are meth an authorization code may be associated with transaction information)
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach transmission of data to other electronic systems (Hawkins FIG. 1, Col 20 lines 49-67). Morea teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the electronic communication system of Hawkins to include the teaching of Morea since teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices.
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach controlled accounts whereby the owner of the account sets restrictions on accounts used by non-owners. Although Hawkins does not explicitly cite the conditional parameter for account control as "security parameters", does teach restricted use accounts whereby the user is not the owner of the account and the account holder wants controls applied to insure the accounts are utilized as intended. Nelson teaches the motivation of minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the conditional parameter of Hawkins as a "security parameter" based on the teaching, suggestion and motivation of Hawkins. Furthermore, Nelson provides supporting evidence and motivation (minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access) that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the permutation of security parameters as set forth in the claims, both Hawkins and Nelson contain elements which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some elements with other elements of the same scope and content. Nelson provides supporting evidence that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Furthermore, Nelson provides the motivation minimizing the potential of misuse of the purchasing accounts of business that non-owners access.
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach applying certain transaction control rules that must be met in order to approve transactions. Nelson teaches the motivation it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant and that transaction restrictions are commonly used to control transactions in order to generate an approval of a transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to expand on the high level approval after evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters of Hawkins to include sending an approval code as taught by Nelson since Nelson teaches the motivation it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant and that transaction restrictions are commonly used to control transactions in order to generate an approval of a transaction
Furthermore, the limitation list with respect to conditions is a Markush group of elements and has been made optional by the applicant. Therefore, additional conditional criteria are simply a permutation of the same concept.
Brown teaches:
wherein the security parameters are stored in the card ((Brown) in at least Abstract; para 0008, para 0015, para 0017-0020)
Both Hawkins and Brown teach utilizing transaction cards and rules applied to transaction cards in order to identify the user. Brown teaches the motivation of storing security parameters on transaction cards in order to using a single device for use in different markets or regions so that the appropriate set of security parameters may be selected based on location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the storage of parameters for transactions to include storing parameters on the transaction card as taught by Brown since Brown teaches the motivation of storing security parameters on transaction cards in order to using a single device for use in different markets or regions so that the appropriate set of security parameters may be selected based on location.
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach applying certain transaction control rules that must be met in order to approve transactions. Nelson teaches the motivation it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant and that transaction restrictions are commonly used to control transactions in order to generate an approval of a transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to expand on the high level approval after evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters of Hawkins to include sending an approval code as taught by Nelson since Nelson teaches the motivation it is known in the art for a positive authorization result that such authorization includes the generation of an authorization code ensuring the bank will pay merchant and that transaction restrictions are commonly used to control transactions in order to generate an approval of a transaction
Golan teaches:
regulating with a processor transactions based upon a predetermined set of security parameters and configured to adjust a security parameter and respond to the transaction request from the requesting client computer ((Golan) in at least para 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time; para 0037, para 0050, para 0056-0057 )
adjusting with the transaction security system, based on the evaluated transaction parameters, the number of security parameters for a predetermined period of time by the financial institution if fraud is suspect, by configuring a processor to allow transactions from a particular geographic location to facilitate payment only in that region, processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters, … the adjusting being for a predetermined period of time and with applied security parameters to control or screen subsequent transactions ((Golan) in at least (Golan) in at least para 0023 wherein the prior art teaches processor executing method, para 0027-0029; wherein the prior art teaches different risk level adjust the security parameters required, and provides an exemplary risk level changes when a user attempts a transaction event at a regular time of day, by postponing the authentication to the point in time; para 0037 wherein the prior art teaches based on risk score adding authentication step of postponing authentication to a later time, para 0038 wherein the prior art teaches functionality decision/other modules may be executed by using software executing on processors, para 0039 wherein the prior art teaches risk score based on velocity checks, ip geo-location, para 0050 wherein the prior art teaches transaction risk assessment risk list includes ip addresses and derived data (location), address, transaction amount, time in day, day in week, user typical timing (hour and/or day) of transactions, velocity of transactions, for example if 99.9% of users of specific merchant in US, then transaction in France riskier, if velocity is above a certain threshold, with a specific IP address (IP geo-location data such as postal code, para 0056-0057 wherein the prior art teaches lowering a required threshold (parameter) and only ask for additional data when risk is not low, adapt the security level requirements, where assessment risk includes postal code and teaches authentication level requirements include time sensitive secrets asking users to provide a secret that changes in time) and using the security parameters to control or screen subsequent transaction ((Golan) in at least para 0024 wherein the prior art teaches risk parameters control the level of authentication for access, para 0025 wherein the prior art teaches the risk level parameters determines whether to deny transaction; para 0027 wherein the prior art teaches risk level low enough that user/transaction data may be collected; wherein the prior art teaches the risks level above a threshold user required to provide security details to initiate a transaction).
Both Hawkins and Golan teach conditions applied to transaction accounts. Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the terms and conditions for account use as set forth by Hawkins to include adjusting authentication requirements as taught by Golan since Golan teaches the motivation adjusting authentication requirements based on risk levels determined for a transaction and provides a plurality of exemplary risk level events.
however Morea teaches
transmitting the data with a server over a communications line, .. .wherein the server is configured to download an application to perform an analysis of the first and second security parameters to detect fraud ((Morea) in at least Abstract; FIG. 9; Col 2 lines 15-45, Col 3 lines 55-60, Col 6 lines 25-40, Col 7 lines 5-20, 35-44, Col 9 lines 25-50, Col 13 lines 22-43, Col 14 lines 1-18, Col 15 lines 7-15)
the number of the security parameters by the financial institution if fraud is suspect, ((Morea) in at least Col 4 lines 48-67, Col 5 lines 1 -11, Col 11 lines 40-67, Col 12 lines 1-16; Claim 11 -12, Claim 19, Claim 23); and
adjusting, with the transaction security system, based on the evaluated transaction parameters ((Morea)in at least Col 4 lines 48-67, wherein the prior art teaches evaluating based on credit risk; Col 11 lines 40-67 wherein the prior art teaches adjusting based on risk assessment)]
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach transmission of data to other electronic systems (Hawkins FIG. 1, Col 20 lines 49-67). Morea teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the electronic communication system of Hawkins to include the teaching of Morea since teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices
Both Hawkins and Morea teach conditional parameters directed toward transaction entities implemented in a transaction process. The prior art Morea teaches applying conditions and adjusting conditions based on threshold with the motivation to prevent accounts being used for an unintended purpose. Although Morea is directed toward a different scope in that it teaches risk categories directed toward business risk of the merchant, the prior art include similar or analogous device/method in that security parameters are applied. Morea teaches design incentives or market forces of adjusting security measures based on the risk category of a transaction entity which would have prompted adaptation of the known device/method. Therefore, Morea is directed toward the base method/device of applying condition/security measures toward a transaction entity. The prior art Hawkins contains a base device/method upon the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Therefore, the prior art, Morea contains a comparable of the first and second security parameters to detect fraud ((Morea) in at least Abstract; Col 2 lines 15-45, Col 3 lines 55-60, Col 6 lines 25-40, Col 7 lines 5-20, 35-44, Col 9 lines 25-50, Col 13 lines 22-43, Col 14 lines 1-18,)
Both Hawkins and Nelson teach transmission of data to other electronic systems (Hawkins FIG. 1, Col 20 lines 49-67). Morea teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the electronic communication system of Hawkins to include the teaching of Morea since teaches the motivation of utilizing a server in computer systems as part of a communication system between devices
Both Hawkins and Morea teach conditional parameters directed toward transaction entities implemented in a transaction process. The prior art Morea teaches applying conditions and adjusting conditions based on threshold with the motivation to prevent accounts being used for an unintended purpose. Although Morea is directed toward a different scope in that it teaches risk categories directed toward business risk of the merchant, the prior art include similar or analogous device/method in that security parameters are applied. Morea teaches design incentives or market forces of adjusting security measures based on the risk category of a transaction entity which would have prompted adaptation of the known device/method. Therefore, Morea is directed toward the base method/device of applying condition/security measures toward a transaction entity. The prior art Hawkins contains a base device/method upon the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Therefore, the prior art, Morea contains a comparable Both Hawkins and Alldredge teach fund transfers from accounts. The prior art Alldredge teaches the motivation of protecting funds from loss. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify transaction request evaluation of Hawkins to include transaction request evaluation as taught by Alldredge since Alldredge teaches the motivation of protecting funds from loss.
Reed teaches:
‘the system configured to protect funds allocated for disaster relief are protected against garnishment, attachment, seizure, and levy by maintaining the account in the name of a source of funds, rather than in the name of the user. ((Reed) in at least para 0004)
establishing a first security parameter ((Reed) in at least para 0004 wherein the prior art teaches limiting parameters controlling the uses of purchases to necessary items rather than non-essential items)
processor is programmed to provide a comparison function for evaluating the transaction based upon the security parameters and the transaction parameters. If the evaluation was favorable, an approval code is sent back to the merchant, who would complete the transaction,… ((Reed) in at least para 0045-0046, para 0056-0059 wherein the prior art teaches merchant receives approval amount and completes transaction)
Although Reed does not explicitly teach sending an approval/authorization codes if evaluation of the transaction based on parameters and the transaction parameters are favorable, the prior art does teach the POS receiving approved UPS’s and approved amount sent and transmits the sum of cost for authorized items and tax to produce a payment total using the card network for payment completing the transaction. A approval/transaction code as known in the art is alphanumeric code indicating whether a card transaction has been approved, where when a card holders information is provided to the POS for verification and permission to process, and an approval is rendered back to the terminal which informs the merchant of the validity of the transaction in real-time. According to KSR, which the prior art provides some teaching or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention, the common sense rationale, states that such is obvious. The prior art Reed explicitly teaches a transaction process of a user presenting to the merchant POS account card information where the information is used to compare transaction requirements for approval attached to specific accounts for specific product purchases and based on the conditions being met the merchant POS receives an approval with the approved product UPS for the specific account and the POS transmits the sum of cost for authorized items and tax to produce a payment total using the card network for payment completing the transaction. The sending of an approval to the merchant POS explicitly indicates that the transaction has been approved, which suggests based on common knowledge in the art to one of ordinary skill to modify the reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore the prior art provides some teaching that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to arrive at the claimed invention.
Both Hawkins and Reed teach comparing specific account spending conditional parameter attached to the specific account types for specific account transactions in order to approve payment of such account for specific products. Reed teaches the motivation of comparing specific account conditions for approval with the transaction purchases in order to send an approval to the merchant for completing the transaction and then completing the transaction, since the accounts for the transactions have been analyzed and are for specific types of transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to expand the details of the payment for transactions to include an approval at the merchant POS as taught by Reed. Reed teaches the motivation of comparing specific account conditions for approval with the transaction purchases in order to send an approval to the merchant for completing the transaction and then completing the transaction, since the accounts for the transactions have been analyzed and are for specific types of transactions.
Both Hawkins and Reed teach accounts with spending conditional parameter attached to the specific account types for specific account transactions. Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify spending conditional parameter of Hawkins to include compensation for uninsured losses as taught by Reed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the spending conditional parameter of Hawkins in this way since Reed teaches the need to limit disaster accounts so that the funds are used as intended.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695