DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-9, 12-17, 19-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) (independent claims 1, 9, and 16) recite(s) a method, system, and computer readable medium for detecting and indicating failed card readings, specifically steps of obtaining information, generating an indication, storing information, detecting a successful transaction, and transmitting information. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are drawn to mental steps and fundamental economic principles, similar to obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource); collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected (FairWarning); tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre- set spending limit (Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One); and collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group).
The obtaining of the first information from a reader is routine data gathering that is part of implementing the abstract idea (organizing human activity). The generation of a failure indication is a mental step that is performed by the generic computer components (memories/ processors) performing routine computer functions, thus applying the abstract idea. The storing in memory is organizing human activity as part of the abstract idea, as storing can be done using paper/ pen and is merely implemented using generic computer components. The detecting of a successful transaction is the generic computer implementation of the abstract idea, and transmitting second information is insignificant post solution activity.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements of a POS system, processor, card reader, etc. are merely generic computer components performing generic computer processing steps. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on the abstract idea, and therefore the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, wherein further the Examiner notes that the recitation of a generic computer component does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea/ mental process. Detecting a successful transaction is interpreted as successfully reading/ processing data, which is generic data processing. The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency.
The Examiner notes that there is no practical application as there is additional elements aside from memories/ processor/ readers/ terminals which are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic components.
The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of compiling data from various sources to generate a full picture of a user’s activity, identity, and frequency of activity in a network audit log combine data sources but do not make the claim eligible where they does not recite technological improvements in how the information sources are accessed and combined). Indeed, nothing in the claims improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Thus, they do not contain limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as instead they are merely instructions applied to generic computer components.
The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas that merely use computers as tools. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it on a processor’ is not sufficient for patent eligibility. See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“To be a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, we have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.”). Thus, they are not indicative of integration into a practical application, and as such amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept.
Re the limitations in the independent claims of transmitting transaction data/ first information/ second information, this limitation is routine data gathering/ post solution activity. The sending and receiving of data is seen as communicate of data between computing elements and is part of the abstract idea performed by generic computer components.
Re the limitation of an API, this is seen as part of a generic computer component as part of sending/ receiving data/ post solution activity.
Re the limitations in the independent claims of receiving the repair, the Examiner notes that receiving a notification of a repair describes activities or interactions that people can perform by following rules or instructions, and as per guidance such limitations are abstract and fall in the category of organizing human activity and/or insignificant post solution activity. Similarly, the sending/ receiving of data is seen as generic computing devices performing their expected steps in execution of the abstract idea and/ or is seen as insignificant post solution activity.
Re the newly added amendment of detecting a failure to read the card, this step is seen as routine data gathering as part of the abstract idea.
Re the newly added limitation of the second information being a reason associated with an incomplete read, the Examiner notes that this is merely specifying the type of data and does not provide a practical application.
Re the newly added limitation that the transaction data transmission is different from the second information, again this is limitations drawn to data, which is not providing a practical applications, but specifying details of the abstract idea (data).
When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the claim limitations fail to transform the abstract idea of obtaining information, generation an indication, storing, detecting a transaction, and transmitting information, into significantly more. Therefore, the independent claims are rejected under 101.
Re claim 2, the limitations are merely drawn to the type of data which is merely specifying details of the abstract idea.
Re claim 3, the limitations are drawn to routine data gathering of the processors and is not a practical application as the processors are generic computer devices performing generic processes of data gathering.
Re claim 4, the type of data is merely specifying details of the data as part of the abstract idea.
Re claims 5-6, the recitations are merely routine data gathering/ matching as part of the abstract idea.
Re claims 7-8, the limitations are drawn to the data type which is part of the abstract idea and not a practical application.
Re claim 9, this has been addressed re claim 1 above.
Re claim 12, specifying details of the abstract data transfer is still abstract.
Re claim 13, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 6.
Re claim 14, this has been addressed re claim 7 above.
Re claim 15, this has been addressed re claim 8 above.
Re claims 16-17 and 19-20, the limitations have been discussed above re claims 1, 2, 6, and 8.
Re claim 22, the limitations are drawn to deleting information which is still seen as part of the abstract idea, analogous to a mental note to oneself/ put on paper and is just another way of making notes, being implemented with generic computer components and can be part of a fundamental economic transaction as well.
Re claims 23-24, such limitations are drawn to specifying details of the abstract idea (type of data/ content of data) and routine gathering steps using generic computer components and therefore do not provide a practical application. Narasimhan et al. and Saeed et al. in the action below are evidence that the limitations are generic/ ubiquitous computer components and Bennett et al. and Singh et al. teach such data is routine and conventional.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 12-13, and 15-17, 19-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merz et al. (US 20190188422) in view of White et al. (US 10163107) and Ishaq (US 10515354).
Re claim 1, the teachings of Mertz et al. have been discussed in previous actions but is silent to manual inputting the information (Mertz et al. teaches fallback can include swiping).
Merz et al. teaches one or more memories and processors (paragraph [0006]+). Merz et al. teaches obtaining first information associated with a card that is incomplete or cannot be processed and generating a read failure indication (paragraph [0006]+ which teaches chip transactions being recorded/ logged in addition to fallback transactions to define a total number of attempted transactions. Paragraph [0033]+ distinguishes between fallback, swipe, and chip transactions. Though silent to generating a failure indication, the Examiner notes that a fallback is attempted when a chip read fails, and thus an indication of failure is an obvious expedient in order to enable the user to then perform a fallback transaction. As the transactions are logged, logging indications of failure (and success) is an obvious expedient for record keeping, especially as thresholds are set up to determine % of transactions to determine a defective chip (FIG. 2c+). Merz et al. teaches resorting to the swipe when the chip read, and thus is broadly interpreted as manual entering of information. Re the limitations of upon successful transactions, sending the second information associated with the card read failure to an external device to cause it to issue a replacement card or repair/ replace the terminal, FIG. 2C+ teaches identifying the chip reader as defective and recommending replacement, and FIG. 2B teaches recommending replacement of the chip card. The Examiner notes that as the successful and failed reads are logged and a threshold % is established for determining defective card/ reader, it would have been obvious after a successful transaction to send information associated with the failure to an external device, such as occurring when the % passes the threshold. It would have been obvious to do this based on detecting a successful transaction, such as to indicate a % of transactions has been met for successful transaction completion.
Merz et al. teaches manual entering via a swipe, but is silent to manual entering such as by hand input.
White et al. teaches such limitations (col 1, lines 65+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for system constraints, security concerns, type of readers/input the system has, etc.
Even further, Ishaq teaches (at block 108/ col 4, lines 8+) the association of a failed with a successful transaction when completed within a time period. Thus, it would have been obvious to transmit based on a successful transaction (thus associating the manual input with the failed transaction) in order to accurately log what reads are for which truncations.
Re the limitation of transmitting to a first external device data associated with the successful transaction, the Examiner notes that transmitting data from transactions to an external device is routine and conventional in the art as part of the financial processing system, for example.
Re the limitation of identifying a prefix of the card to transmit second information associated with the card failure to a second external device, the Examiner notes that Merz at 132 teaches recommending to the issuer that a card be replaced, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the issuer be a second external device so that the card can be replaced. A prefix or string of digits would be implicit to identify the issuer/card, for example.
Re the limitation of using an API associated with the second external device and transmitting the second card information to the second external device, this is broadly interpreted as an interface to provide the issuer which is obviated by the electronic transaction systems.
Re the newly added limitation that first information indicates a failure to read the card, and that detection of the failure generates a card failure indication, the Examiner note that information from a read is interpreted as being detected to indicate a failure via the logging of the transactions which is interpreted as information.
Re the newly added limitation that the second information indicate a reason for failure that is associated with the implement read, the Examiner notes that paragraph [0027]+ of Merz et al. teaches identifying the unique chip card as defective and reporting defective cards to the issuer system for replacement. Therefore, a reason for failure is interpreted as a defective card, and the communication itself identifies a reason for failure being a defective card., which is interpreted as an incomplete read as recited.
Re the newly added limitation that the transmitting of transaction data is different form transmitting second information, the Examiner notes that traditional transaction information is interpreted as information of a positive transaction such as, but not limited to card number, expiration, name of cardholder, etc. and the second information, as discussed above, is interpreted as the reporting as defective. Therefore, based on the second information (failure) and the reason for failure (implicit that there was a defective card) one of a replacement of the card or repair/ replace of the terminal has been taught above (abstract+).
Re claim 2, White teaches (abstract+ a number of times in order to meet a threshold) and paragraph [0008] + of Merz teaches using time periods to set a threshold for transactions.
Nonetheless, Ishaq teaches correlation of failed attempts with manual attempts (success) within a limited time.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to associate the failed with successful transactions.
Re claim 3, as discussed above, failure to read the chip or stipe has been taught.
Re claim 4, as failure information is provided, it would have been obvious to include relevant data so that the type of reader is clarified and the failures are explained, as times have been discussed above.
Re claim 5, the Examiner notes that as the card issuer is identified and contacted for a defective card, it would have been obvious to use known identification information so that the known issuer is contacted. The Examiner notes it would have been obvious to transmit the necessary information to the issuer so that the proper issuer can be notified.
Re claim 6, as discussed above, the merchant/ issuer receives a message indicating the terminal/ readier is defective, and that a plurality of thresholds are provided for determining failure. (FIG. 2C). Re claims 6, 13, and 19, as the system has not been specifically defined to exclude 36 from being the “external device”, for claim 19 purposes, a message is received from 36 indicating a defected terminal based on the card data.
Re claim 8, it would have been obvious to send an identifier to identify the reader/ card/ transaction.
Re claim 9, the limitations have been discussed above. A POS system is broadly recited and is read upon by the prior art, such as merchants or even purchases at ATMs as known in the art.
Re claim 12, the Examiner notes that as the card issuer is identified and contacted for a defective card, it would have been obvious to use known identification information so that the known issuer is contacted, such as card prefixes. The use of an API is merely interpreted as software/ coding to transmit data, and thus is an obvious expedient to perform the method.
Re claim 13, as discussed above, the merchant/ issuer receives a message indicating the terminal/ readier is defective, and that a plurality of thresholds are provided for determining failure. (FIG. 2C).
Re claim 15, it would have been obvious to send an identifier to identify the reader as part of identification information purposes.
Re claims 16-17 and 19-20, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 17, the incomplete read is associated with a defective card which is interpreted as a failure to read.
Claims 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merz/ White et al./ Ishaq, as discussed above, in view of Palmero, as discussed above.
Re claims 7 and 14, the teachings of Merz/ White et al./ Ishaq have been discussed above but are silent to an error code.
Palmero teaches an error code (paragraph [0034] +).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to provide an identifier or information regarding the error, as known in the art.
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merz et al./ White et al./Ishaq, as discussed above, in view of Fang et al. (US 20160321145).
The teachings of Merz et al./ White et al./ Ishaq have been discussed above, but are silent to deleting the card reader failure indication.
Fang et al. teaches such limitations at paragraph [0033]+ that database record deletions are logged, thus obviated deleting of records.
At the time the invention was made, one would have been motivated to combine the teachings for record keeping purposes and memory purposes.
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merz et al./ White et al./Ishaq, as discussed above, in view of Bennett et al. (US 20170249629).
The teachings of Merz et al./ White et al./ Ishaq/ have been discussed above but are silent to the failure indication information identifying an issuer.
Bennett et al. teaches an error log of transactions that were not completed and reasons therefore (128) wherein the log contains information about each transactions stored by the computer and may be utilized when reconciling accounts belong to issuers. Accordingly, in order to reconcile with issuers it would have been obvious for the data to include issuer information.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to include issuer information in order to communicate with issuers as part of the transaction that failed.
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merz et al./ White et al./Ishaq, as discussed above, in view of Singh et al. (US 20080114696).
The teachings of Merz et al./ White et al./ Ishaq/ have been discussed above but are silent to the failure indication information identifying an issuer.
Singh et al. teaches a log 370 and an error log 375 and communicating with the vendor and issuers (paragraph [0041]+). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for an error log to include issuer information in order to communicate to the necessary parties.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to include issuer information in order to communicate with issuers as part of the transaction that failed.
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merz et al./ White et al./Ishaq, as discussed above, in view of Narasimhan et al. (US 20180189769).
The teachings of Merz et al./ White et al./ Ishaq/ have been discussed above but are silent to the merchant reader include a camera/ biometric sensor.
Narasimhan et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0027]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for security.
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merz et al./ White et al./Ishaq, as discussed above, in view of Saeed et al. (US 20170076269).
The teachings of Merz et al./ White et al./ Ishaq/ have been discussed above but are silent to the merchant reader include a camera/ biometric sensor.
Saaed et al. teaches such limitations (abstract+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for security.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the rejection above. Further, the Examiner notes that the Examiner did indicate that the proposed amendments during the interview on 4-29-25 overcame the art of record, the Applicant did not submit the same amendments in their formal response compared to the proposed amendments provided to the agenda. The claims are still drawn to organized human activity including mental/ economic steps. Card readers are routine data gathering limitations. The newly added limitations added are merely specifying details of the abstract idea (details of the data). Again causing replacement of the card or repair of the terminal is seen as insignificant post solution activity. Such limitations do not provide a practical application. Additional art has also been applied above for the 103 rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steve Paik can be reached on 5712722404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2887