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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant's “Amendment” filed on 10/22/2025 has been considered.
Rejection to Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 have not been overcome.
Rejection to Claims 1-20 under nonstatutory double patenting have not been overcome.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,062,366. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,062,366.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
A method for execution by a computing device of an exchange item marketplace network, the method comprising:
obtaining, by the computing device, fraud information indicating an occurrence of a fraud issue regarding a first exchange item of a plurality of exchange items of the exchange item marketplace network, wherein the first exchange item is associated with a first transaction blockchain and a first contract blockchain;
accessing, by the computing device, one or more of the first transaction blockchain and the first contract blockchain to identify an unfavorable condition, wherein the unfavorable condition indicates that the fraud issue has affected integrity of the first exchange item;
when the one or more of the first transaction blockchain and the first contract blockchain includes the unfavorable condition:
determining, by the computing device, a fraud abatement approach for the first exchange item, wherein the fraud abatement approach is based on one or more of an exchange item rule associated with the first exchange item, a use option associated with the first exchange item, and an agreement associated with the first exchange item;
executing, by the computing device, the fraud abatement approach to remediate the fraud issue regarding the first exchange item:
determining based on the fraud information, by the computing device, that a second exchange item of the plurality of exchange items is associated with the first exchange item, wherein the second exchange item is associated with a second transaction blockchain and a second contract blockchain;
accessing, by the computing device, the one or more of the second transaction blockchain the second contract blockchain to identify a second unfavorable condition, wherein the second unfavorable condition indicates that the fraud issue has affected integrity of the second exchange item:
when the one or more of the second transaction blockchain and the second contract blockchain includes the second unfavorable condition:
determining, by the computing device, a second fraud abatement approach for the second exchange item, wherein the second fraud abatement approach is based on one or more of an exchange item rule associated with the second exchange item, a use option associated with the second exchange item, and an agreement associated with the second exchange item; and
executing, by the computing device, the second fraud abatement approach to remediate the fraud issue regarding the second exchange item.
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations as emphasized, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the method is performed by a computing device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, “obtaining, analyzing, identifying, determining and executing” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
The claim recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), including:
A method for execution by a computing device of an exchange item marketplace network, the method comprising:
obtaining, by the computing device, fraud information indicating an occurrence of a fraud issue regarding a first exchange item of a plurality of exchange items of the exchange item marketplace network, wherein the first exchange item is associated with a first transaction blockchain and a first contract blockchain;
accessing, by the computing device, one or more of the first transaction blockchain and the first contract blockchain to identify an unfavorable condition, wherein the unfavorable condition indicates that the fraud issue has affected integrity of the first exchange item;
when the one or more of the first transaction blockchain and the first contract blockchain includes the unfavorable condition:
determining, by the computing device, a fraud abatement approach for the first exchange item, wherein the fraud abatement approach is based on one or more of an exchange item rule associated with the first exchange item, a use option associated with the first exchange item, and an agreement associated with the first exchange item;
executing, by the computing device, the fraud abatement approach to remediate the fraud issue regarding the first exchange item:
determining based on the fraud information, by the computing device, that a second exchange item of the plurality of exchange items is associated with the first exchange item, wherein the second exchange item is associated with a second transaction blockchain and a second contract blockchain;
accessing, by the computing device, the one or more of the second transaction blockchain the second contract blockchain to identify a second unfavorable condition, wherein the second unfavorable condition indicates that the fraud issue has affected integrity of the second exchange item:
when the one or more of the second transaction blockchain and the second contract blockchain includes the second unfavorable condition:
determining, by the computing device, a second fraud abatement approach for the second exchange item, wherein the second fraud abatement approach is based on one or more of an exchange item rule associated with the second exchange item, a use option associated with the second exchange item, and an agreement associated with the second exchange item; and
executing, by the computing device, the second fraud abatement approach to remediate the fraud issue regarding the second exchange item.
These limitations (un-bolded) are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.) Specifically, the additional element of a computing device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of connecting to a platform on a network) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. Further, the additional elements to no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). For example, stating that the method is performed by a computing device, only generally links the commercial interactions and management of relationships or interactions between people to a computer environment. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Therefore, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept and does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claims 2-20 are dependencies of claim 1. The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. They recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, including:
The method of claim 1, wherein the fraud information comprises one or more of: seller computing device information regarding a seller computing device of the exchange item marketplace network; exchange item information regarding an exchange item of the plurality of exchange items; owner computing device information regarding a computing device that has secure custody of the exchange item; replenish information regarding a replenish instrument used to add value to the exchange item; blockchain information regarding a blockchain associated with the exchange item marketplace network; and transaction information regarding a transaction associated with one or more of the seller computing device, the owner computing device, the exchange item, the blockchain, and the replenish 35 instrument. (additional elements are recited only generally and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology)
The method of claim 1, wherein the fraud issue comprises one or more of: an unfavorable condition associated with a secure custody protocol associated with an exchange item of the plurality of exchange items; an unfavorable condition associated with a transaction associated with an exchange item of the plurality of exchange items; an unfavorable condition associated with an owner computing device associated with an exchange item of the plurality of exchange items; an unfavorable condition associated with a replenish instrument associated with an exchange item of the plurality of exchange items; an unfavorable condition associated with a seller computing device associated with an exchange item of the plurality of exchange items; and an unfavorable condition associated with an exchange item of the plurality of exchange items.. (only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment)
The method of claim 1 further comprises: when the fraud abatement approach includes replacing the first exchange item: taking secure custody of the exchange item in accordance with a secure custody protocol; modifying the first exchange item to produce a new exchange item; and returning secure custody of the new exchange item to a verified computing device. (only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment)
The method of claim 1 further comprises: when the fraud abatement approach includes retiring the first exchange item, performing the retiring by one or more of: updating the marketplace database to indicate that the first exchange item has is retired from use; removing the first exchange item from the marketplace database; generating an end block of a transactions blockchain associated with the first exchange item; and issuing retirement information to a current owner computing device associated with the first exchange item. (additional elements are recited only generally and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology)
The method of claim 1 further comprises: when the fraud abatement approach includes marking the first exchange item as fraudulent, performing one or more of: updating a transactions block associated with the first exchange item to indicate a fraudulent status; updating an exchange item data file associated with the first exchange item to indicate a fraudulent status, wherein the exchange item data file is stored in a marketplace database of the exchange item marketplace network; and sending an alert message to an owner computing device associated with the first exchange item, wherein the alert message indicates the first exchange item is fraudulent. (additional elements are recited only generally and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology)
The method of claim 1 further comprises: when the fraud abatement approach includes flagging the first exchange item for verification, performing one or more of: verifying, by the computing device, a transaction blockchain associated with the first exchange item; verifying, by the computing device, another computing device associated with the first exchange item; and verifying, the computing device, exchange item information associated with the first exchange item. (additional elements are recited only generally and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology)
wherein the first fraud issue is fraud associated with a seller computing device that last sold the first exchange item and the second fraud issue is fraud associated with a blockchain associated with the first exchange item. (additional elements are recited only generally and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology)
wherein the second fraud issue is one or more of: determining a nonce of the blockchain is invalid; determining a hash of the blockchain is invalid; and determining a signature of the blockchain is invalid. (sales activities are only generally linked to a particular technological environment)
determining the nonce is outside a subset of nonce values allowed by a secure custody protocol. (sales activities are only generally linked to a particular technological environment)
wherein subset of nonce values allowed by the secure custody protocol is based on one or more of: a predetermination; a value associated with the first exchange item; an exchange item type associated with the first exchange item; the exchange item rule. (sales activities are only generally linked to a particular technological environment)
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0278801 A1 to Friedlander in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 20170011387 A1 to Lennon in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0292680 A1 to Wilson.
Regarding Claim 1, Friedlander discloses a method for execution by a computing device of an exchange item marketplace network, the method comprising:
obtaining, by the computing device, fraud information indicating an occurrence of a fraud issue regarding a first exchange item of a plurality of exchange items of the exchange item marketplace network, ([0014] various types of prepaid cards (e.g., gift cards), gift card facsimiles, and similar financial instruments (herein referred to as “gift cards” unless indicated otherwise)) wherein the exchange item is associated with a first transaction blockchain and a first contract blockchain; ([0046] At step 702, the consumer exchanges a gift card for, e.g., a cash voucher at the kiosk 100. At step 704, the consumer (or other individual) subsequently attempts to make a purchase from a retailer (e.g., an on-line retailer) using the gift card identifier associated with the exchanged gift card. [0046] detect a fraudulent transaction and identify responsible parties by referring to a list or database (e.g., the database 208) of consumer cellphone numbers that are associated with previously exchanged gift card identifiers. In other embodiments, various other or additional consumer identifiers can be used to associate consumers with the gift cards that they have exchanged, such as a driver's license, credit card number, zip code, email address, social security number, etc. [0046] At step 704, the consumer (or other individual) subsequently attempts to make a purchase from a retailer (e.g., an on-line retailer) using the gift card identifier associated with the exchanged gift card. At step 706, the retailer, the exchange server 204, or other system checks the list of previously exchanged gift cards (or the database) to determine whether the gift card identifier matches any previously exchanged gift card identifiers, which would indicate that the consumer (or someone else) is double dipping. If there is not a match, then the routine 700 ends. If there is a match at decision step 708, the retailer declines the consumer's transaction at step 710.)
identify an unfavorable condition, wherein the unfavorable condition indicates that the fraud issue has affected integrity of the first exchange item; ([0045] the routine maintains a list and/or database (e.g., database 208) of verified consumer cellphone numbers along with the respective gift card identifiers associated with consumers' transactions. For example, when a consumer exchanges a gift card having a gift card identifier “ABC,” the routine associates (e.g., in a list or a database) the consumer's cellphone number (e.g., 555.555.5555) with the gift card identifier: “555.555.5555 -ABC.” The list (or the database) can be referenced by the kiosk 100 (or the exchange server 204) and/or other entities and/or authorities for use in determining whether someone is subsequently attempting to use the same gift card (“ABC”) in another transaction (i.e., double dipping) and, if so, identify the responsible parties, as further described below.)
when the one or more of the first transaction blockchain and the first contract blockchain includes the unfavorable condition:
determining, by the computing device, a fraud abatement approach for the first exchange item; ([0046] At step 706, the retailer, the exchange server 204, or other system checks the list of previously exchanged gift cards (or the database) to determine whether the gift card identifier matches any previously exchanged gift card identifiers, which would indicate that the consumer (or someone else) is double dipping. If there is not a match, then the routine 700 ends. If there is a match at decision step 708, the retailer declines the consumer's transaction at step 710. In some embodiments, if there is a match (e.g., the gift card identifier has already been exchanged) then at step 712, the exchange server 204 enters or otherwise associates the consumer's cellphone number with a list (i.e., a “fraud list”) of cellphone numbers that are associated with fraudulent activity. The exchange server 204 can also perform various anti-fraud operations based on the consumer's cellphone number. For example, the exchange server 204 can perform a reverse name lookup (i.e., the consumer's name and/or address is determined based on the consumer's cellphone number), and/or notify authorities or the card issuer of the consumer's name, address, cellphone number, and/or the location of the kiosk 100 (e.g., the kiosk 100 can determine its GPS coordinates via location device 132).) and
executing, by the computing device, the fraud abatement approach to remediate the fraud issue regarding the first exchange item: ([0046] If the consumer (i.e., the consumer's cellphone number or other identifier) is on the fraud list, then consumer is prevented from making the second gift card exchange (i.e., the consumer's transaction is terminated).)
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the fraud abatement approach is based on one or more of an exchange item rule associated with the first exchange item, a use option associated with the first exchange item, and an agreement associated with the first exchange item; accessing, by the computing device, one or more of the first transaction blockchain and the first contract blockchain to identify an unfavorable condition; determining based on the fraud information, by the computing device, that a second exchange item of the plurality of exchange items is associated with the first exchange item, wherein the second exchange item is associated with a second transaction blockchain and a second contract blockchain; accessing, by the computing device, the one or more of the second transaction blockchain the second contract blockchain to identify a second unfavorable condition, wherein the second unfavorable condition indicates that the fraud issue has affected integrity of the second exchange item: when the one or more of the second transaction blockchain and the second contract blockchain includes the second unfavorable condition: determining, by the computing device, a second fraud abatement approach for the second exchange item, wherein the second fraud abatement approach is based on one or more of an exchange item rule associated with the second exchange item, a use option associated with the second exchange item, and an agreement associated with the second exchange item; and executing, by the computing device, the second fraud abatement approach to remediate the fraud issue regarding the second exchange item.
Lennon, on the other hand, teaches wherein the fraud abatement approach is based on one or more of an exchange item rule associated with the first exchange item, a use option associated with the first exchange item, and an agreement associated with the first exchange item; ([0028] depending on the business relationship between the gift card exchange and various merchants, the merchant may agree to refund all or a portion of the original gift card amount to the gift card exchange rather than merely provide a new card in exchange for the old gift card. For example, upon presentation of the gift card number by the gift card exchange server along with an indication that the card has been sold by its owner, Home Depot may return, for example, $95 of the original $100 it was paid for the card to the gift card exchange. Home Depot keeps $5 of the transaction. The gift card exchange can then pay the holder of the credit (e.g. the retail merchant) the amount of the gift card purchase price (e.g. the $85) and keep the difference (e.g. $95-85=$10). As soon as the gift card exchange server receives the funds back from the original issuer of the gift card, it may release the hold put on the credit at the retailer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Friedlander, the features as taught by Lennon, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Friedlander, to include the teachings of Lennon, in order to provide a platform for exchanging gift cards for cash, vouchers, credit, etc. (Lennon, [0002]) and to protect against fraud (Lennon, [0003]).
Wilson, on the other hand, teaches determining based on the fraud information, by the computing device, that a second exchange item of the plurality of exchange items is associated with the first exchange item, wherein the second exchange item is associated with a second transaction blockchain and a second contract blockchain; accessing, by the computing device, the one or more of the second transaction blockchain the second contract blockchain to identify a second unfavorable condition, wherein the second unfavorable condition indicates that the fraud issue has affected integrity of the second exchange item: when the one or more of the second transaction blockchain and the second contract blockchain includes the second unfavorable condition: determining, by the computing device, a second fraud abatement approach for the second exchange item, wherein the second fraud abatement approach is based on one or more of an exchange item rule associated with the second exchange item, a use option associated with the second exchange item, and an agreement associated with the second exchange item; and executing, by the computing device, the second fraud abatement approach to remediate the fraud issue regarding the second exchange item.. ([0082] A bad transaction scenario can result from, for example, a human error, a limit reached, an attempt to defraud the system, potential bugs, and the like. Errors are reported on the trader trade entry tool, risk dashboard, and member risk dashboard. The following summarizes an exemplary bad transaction occurring due to an ‘out of credit’ scenario. Trader Ta tries to submit, for example, a 1000 bitcoin trade with Trader Tb, who only has credit authorization for a 500 bitcoin trade. [0100] The digital asset intermediary electronic settlement platform server checks that tx2 is a valid transaction and broadcasts this to blockchain (1309). After an appropriate number of confirmations in the blockchain, seller multi-signature application controls an active balance of digital assets rights in the form of utxo2 for the balance of the time period (for example, 24 hours) that can be used to settle contra-transactions (1310). [0101] For any trade less than the total balance of the seller multi-signature control, granularity of the balances must be introduced and new redeems must be issued. Any transaction that uses an utxo as an input invalidates any other future ledger entries that would use that utxo as an input. Therefore, new redeems must be generated to ensure the user can withdraw rights.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Friedlander and Lennon, the features as taught by Wilson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination, to include the teachings of Wilson, in order to prevent fraudulent transactions (Wilson, [0064]).
Regarding Claim 2, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
Friedlander discloses wherein the fraud information comprises one or more of:
seller computing device information regarding a seller computing device of the exchange item marketplace network;
exchange item information regarding an exchange item of the plurality of exchange items; ([0030] the methods and systems disclosed herein use the gift card identifier and its value (e.g., its face value or remaining balance) to perform the exchange process. For example, a consumer can use the kiosk 100 to exchange a first gift card having a value of $100 and a first identifier (e.g., “XYZ”). The $100 value is verified, via a database and/or list, at the exchange server based on the first identifier.)
owner computing device information regarding a computing device that has secure custody of the exchange item;
replenish information regarding a replenish instrument used to add value to the exchange item;
blockchain information regarding a blockchain associated with the exchange item marketplace network; and
transaction information regarding a transaction associated with one or more of the seller computing device, the owner computing device, the exchange item, the blockchain, and the replenish 35 instrument.. ([0014] After receiving the gift card from the consumer and dispensing the desired output in exchange for the card, the kiosk can update a gift card database to reflect the exchange and resell the gift card or the gift card value to another consumer via, e.g., an online or electronic marketplace (e.g., a website) or other marketplace.)
Regarding Claim 3, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
Friedlander discloses wherein the unfavorable condition is regarding one or more of:
a secure custody protocol;
a transaction;
an owner computing device; ([0045] the routine maintains a list and/or database (e.g., database 208) of verified consumer cellphone numbers along with the respective gift card identifiers associated with consumers' transactions. For example, when a consumer exchanges a gift card having a gift card identifier “ABC,” the routine associates (e.g., in a list or a database) the consumer's cellphone number (e.g., 555.555.5555) with the gift card identifier: “555.555.5555 -ABC.” The list (or the database) can be referenced by the kiosk 100 (or the exchange server 204) and/or other entities and/or authorities for use in determining whether someone is subsequently attempting to use the same gift card (“ABC”) in another transaction (i.e., double dipping) and, if so, identify the responsible parties, as further described below.)
a replenish instrument; and
a seller computing device.
Regarding Claim 4, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
Friedlander discloses when the fraud abatement approach includes replacing the first exchange item: taking secure custody of the exchange item in accordance with a secure custody protocol; modifying the first exchange item to produce a new exchange item; and returning secure custody of the new exchange item to a verified computing device. ([0015] when the kiosk receives a first gift card for exchange from a consumer, the kiosk and/or a kiosk server (herein referred to as an “exchange server” unless indicated otherwise) or kiosk operator (herein referred to as a “service provider”), uses the first gift card to purchase a new gift card (i.e., a second gift card). This process removes the value from the first gift card and thereby prevents the consumer from using the card number from the first card to make fraudulent purchases after the consumer has already received value for the first gift card from the kiosk. The exchange server (or service provider) can then sell the new card to the marketplace or otherwise monetize the new card to receive remuneration for the exchange.)
Regarding Claim 5, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
Friedlander discloses when the fraud abatement approach includes modifying the first exchange item: obtaining first exchange item information regarding the first exchange item from a marketplace database of the exchange item marketplace network; modifying the first exchange item information to produce updated first exchange item information; and storing the updated first exchange item information in the marketplace database.. ([0019] The known “active” gift card identification numbers and balances can be retrieved, for example, from a local and/or remote database, text file, or webpage (e.g., “scrapped” from HTML) and stored on recordable media that resides at or is accessible to the kiosk and/or server. If the gift card's identifier is not active, the gift card is not valid for redemption. Determining whether to make an offer for the gift card is, in some embodiments, based on verification that the gift card has redeemable value. For example, a gift card can be active, as described above, but not have any redeemable value or have a redeemable value less than the card's face value. If verification fails, the exchange server does not make an offer to purchase the gift card from the consumer. In another example, an offer is not made if the value on the gift card is verified but the status of the gift card is not active. Changing a gift card's status from “active” to “inactive” can be useful when the gift card's face value is previously used, or when a gift card is lost or stolen.)
Regarding Claim 6, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
Friedlander discloses when the fraud abatement approach includes retiring the first exchange item, performing the retiring by one or more of: updating the marketplace database to indicate that the first exchange item has is retired from use; removing the first exchange item from the marketplace database; generating an end block of the first transaction blockchain associated with the first exchange item; and issuing retirement information to a current owner computing device associated with the first exchange item.... ([0024] the original issuer may want confirmation that the original card has not been redeemed before it will drain the card of value (retire the exchange item, remove from the marketplace) and issue a new card. In this example, the credit may not be released by the gift card exchange server 100 until the new card is issued. [0035] the gift card exchange is protected against loss because a hold is placed on any issued credit until the gift card is physically redeemed or otherwise drained of value.)
Regarding Claim 7, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
Friedlander discloses when the fraud abatement approach includes marking the first exchange item as fraudulent, performing one or more of:
updating the first transaction blockchain associated with the first exchange item to indicate a fraudulent status;
updating an exchange item data file associated with the first exchange item to indicate a fraudulent status, wherein the exchange item data file is stored in a marketplace database of the exchange item marketplace network; and
sending an alert message to an owner computing device associated with the first exchange item, wherein the alert message indicates the first exchange item is fraudulent..... ([0046] the exchange server 204 can perform a reverse name lookup (i.e., the consumer's name and/or address is determined based on the consumer's cellphone number), and/or notify authorities or the card issuer of the consumer's name, address, cellphone number, and/or the location of the kiosk 100 (e.g., the kiosk 100 can determine its GPS coordinates via location device 132). The server 204 can also notify the consumer (e.g., by sending an SMS and/or voice message) that the provider is aware of the consumer's fraudulent activity and that steps have been taken to remedy or prevent it in the future (e.g., preventing future card exchanges by the kiosk, notifying authorities, etc.).)
Regarding Claim 8, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
Friedlander discloses when the fraud abatement approach includes flagging the first exchange item for verification, performing one or more of:
verifying, by the computing device, the first transaction blockchain associated with the first exchange item;
verifying, by the computing device, another computing device associated with the first exchange item; and
verifying, the computing device, exchange item information associated with the first exchange item. ([0014] verify the gift card's activation status and value, and provide exchange options to a consumer. [0023] verifying the identity of the consumer and/or for security purposes)
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0278801 A1 to Friedlander in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 20170011387 A1 to Lennon in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0095239 A1 to Specogna.
Regarding Claim 9, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
However the combination does not explicitly teach wherein when the exchange item information is favorably verified, removing the flagging associated with first exchange item
Specogna, on the other hand, teaches wherein when the exchange item information is favorably verified, removing the flagging associated with first exchange item. ([0104] the block may be temporary at first, and may be made permanent upon confirmation by the cardholder of the fraudulent nature of one or more flagged transactions, or removed upon confirmation by the cardholder that flagged transaction(s) are not fraudulent.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Friedlander and Lennon, the features as taught by Specogna, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination, to include the teachings of Specogna, in order to mitigate fraud and risk (Specogna, [0023]).
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0278801 A1 to Friedlander in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 20170011387 A1 to Lennon in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0335641 A1 to White.
Regarding Claim 10, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
However the combination does not explicitly teach determining a risk level score for an exchange item of the plurality of exchange items, wherein the risk level score indicates the likelihood of one or more of the exchange item is fraudulent, and the exchange item is able to be utilized in a fraudulent manner in the exchange item marketplace network; and determining the fraud abatement approach based on the risk level score.
White, on the other hand, teaches determining a risk level score for an exchange item of the plurality of exchange items, wherein the risk level score indicates the likelihood of one or more of the exchange item is fraudulent, and the exchange item is able to be utilized in a fraudulent manner in the exchange item marketplace network; and determining the fraud abatement approach based on the risk level score.. ([0045] if the MCC indicates that the transaction originated from an upscale designer handbag merchant or a jewelry store merchant that the enhanced payment card account cardholder has never before frequented, then (in implementations wherein a high recommended decision score indicates increased risk of fraud) the recommended decision score may be increased by a certain amount and/or a predetermined algorithm may be used to increase the recommended decision score. In this example, the recommended decision score may be increased further still if the total purchase transaction exceeds a preset threshold value (which may have been set by the issuer FI) such as two thousand dollars ($2,000.00). The result may be a decline recommendation by the fraud scoring platform 312 if the recommended decision score equals or surpasses the risk threshold that had been determined for the enhanced payment card account.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Friedlander and Lennon, the features as taught by White, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination, to include the teachings of White, in order to provide enhanced fraud monitoring (White, [0042]).
Regarding Claim 11, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
However the combination does not explicitly teach comparing the risk level score to one or more risk thresholds; and when the risk level score exceeds a first risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds and does not exceed a second risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds, determining a first fraud abatement approach as the fraud abatement approach..
White, on the other hand, teaches comparing the risk level score to one or more risk thresholds; and when the risk level score exceeds a first risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds and does not exceed a second risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds, determining a first fraud abatement approach as the fraud abatement approach. ([0045] if the MCC indicates that the transaction originated from an upscale designer handbag merchant or a jewelry store merchant that the enhanced payment card account cardholder has never before frequented, then (in implementations wherein a high recommended decision score indicates increased risk of fraud) the recommended decision score may be increased by a certain amount and/or a predetermined algorithm may be used to increase the recommended decision score. In this example, the recommended decision score may be increased further still if the total purchase transaction exceeds a preset threshold value (which may have been set by the issuer FI) such as two thousand dollars ($2,000.00). The result may be a decline recommendation by the fraud scoring platform 312 if the recommended decision score equals or surpasses the risk threshold that had been determined for the enhanced payment card account. [0054] a repeat transaction from a retailer store that the enhanced payment card account cardholder frequents on a regular basis may improve or reduce the recommended decision score enough to lower the fraud risk of the transaction to a level below the predetermined threshold. In this example, the fraud scoring platform 312 then issues a transaction authorization decision for this particular transaction of the cardholder (because it seems to be for a legitimate purchase).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Friedlander and Lennon, the features as taught by White, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination, to include the teachings of White, in order to voids consumer or cardholder inconvenience and/or embarrassment (White, [0054]).
Regarding Claim 12, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
However the combination does not explicitly teach when the risk level score exceeds a second risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds and does not exceed a third risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds, determining a first and second fraud abatement approach as the fraud abatement approach...
White, on the other hand, teaches when the risk level score exceeds a second risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds and does not exceed a third risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds, determining a first and second fraud abatement approach as the fraud abatement approach.. ([0043-0044] in the United States, the MCC can be used to determine if a payment needs to be reported to the IRS for tax purposes. In addition, MCCs may be used by payment card issuer FIs to categorize, track and/or restrict certain types of purchases. In some implementations, a business classification and/or the MCC and/or the MID might be used to apply different business rules and/or logic decisions to the recommended decision score for enhanced payment card account transactions. For example, if the MCC indicates that the transaction is from “Sam's Restaurant,” which the cardholder of the enhanced payment card account frequents on a regular basis, then the recommended decision score may be improved somewhat by applying a value to decrease the overall score (even if the purchase transaction amount is a high dollar value) to ensure that this particular transaction of the enhanced payment card account cardholder is not declined).) (categorizing, tracking and not declining the transaction is interpreted as determining a first and second fraud abatement approach as the approach.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Friedlander and Lennon, the features as taught by White, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination, to include the teachings of White, in order to voids consumer or cardholder inconvenience and/or embarrassment (White, [0054]).
Regarding Claim 13, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
However the combination does not explicitly teach when the risk level score exceeds a second risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds and does not exceed a third risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds, determining a second fraud abatement approach as the fraud abatement approach..
White, on the other hand, teaches when the risk level score exceeds a second risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds and does not exceed a third risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds, determining a second fraud abatement approach as the fraud abatement approach. ([0043-0044] in the United States, the MCC can be used to determine if a payment needs to be reported to the IRS for tax purposes. In addition, MCCs may be used by payment card issuer FIs to categorize, track and/or restrict certain types of purchases. In some implementations, a business classification and/or the MCC and/or the MID might be used to apply different business rules and/or logic decisions to the recommended decision score for enhanced payment card account transactions. For example, if the MCC indicates that the transaction is from “Sam's Restaurant,” which the cardholder of the enhanced payment card account frequents on a regular basis, then the recommended decision score may be improved somewhat by applying a value to decrease the overall score (even if the purchase transaction amount is a high dollar value) to ensure that this particular transaction of the enhanced payment card account cardholder is not declined).) (not declining the transaction is interpreted as determining a second fraud abatement approach as the approach.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Friedlander and Lennon, the features as taught by White, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination, to include the teachings of White, in order to voids consumer or cardholder inconvenience and/or embarrassment (White, [0054]).
Regarding Claim 14, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
However the combination does not explicitly teach when the risk level score exceeds a third risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds and does not exceed a fourth risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds, determining a third fraud abatement approach as the fraud abatement approach...
White, on the other hand, teaches when the risk level score exceeds a third risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds and does not exceed a fourth risk threshold of the one or more risk thresholds, determining a third fraud abatement approach as the fraud abatement approach.. ([0043-0044] in the United States, the MCC can be used to determine if a payment needs to be reported to the IRS for tax purposes. In addition, MCCs may be used by payment card issuer FIs to categorize, track and/or restrict certain types of purchases. In some implementations, a business classification and/or the MCC and/or the MID might be used to apply different business rules and/or logic decisions to the recommended decision score for enhanced payment card account transactions. For example, if the MCC indicates that the transaction is from “Sam's Restaurant,” which the cardholder of the enhanced payment card account frequents on a regular basis, then the recommended decision score may be improved somewhat by applying a value to decrease the overall score (even if the purchase transaction amount is a high dollar value) to ensure that this particular transaction of the enhanced payment card account cardholder is not declined).) (declining the transaction and not notifying the IRS is interpreted as determining a third fraud abatement approach as the approach.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Friedlander and Lennon, the features as taught by White, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination, to include the teachings of White, in order to voids consumer or cardholder inconvenience and/or embarrassment (White, [0054]).
Regarding Claim 15, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
However the combination does not explicitly teach obtaining the exchange item rule associated with the first exchange item, wherein the exchange item rule indicates a first fraud abatement approach of a plurality of fraud abatement approaches to utilize as the fraud abatement approach when the fraud issue is of a first fraud type, and indicates a second fraud abatement approach of the plurality of fraud abatement approaches to utilize as the fraud abatement approach when the fraud issue is of a second fraud type.
White, on the other hand, teaches obtaining the exchange item rule associated with the first exchange item, wherein the exchange item rule indicates a first fraud abatement approach of a plurality of fraud abatement approaches to utilize as the fraud abatement approach when the fraud issue is of a first fraud type, and indicates a second fraud abatement approach of the plurality of fraud abatement approaches to utilize as the fraud abatement approach when the fraud issue is of a second fraud type. ([0043-0044] in the United States, the MCC can be used to determine if a payment needs to be reported to the IRS for tax purposes. In addition, MCCs may be used by payment card issuer FIs to categorize, track and/or restrict certain types of purchases. In some implementations, a business classification and/or the MCC and/or the MID might be used to apply different business rules and/or logic decisions to the recommended decision score for enhanced payment card account transactions. For example, if the MCC indicates that the transaction is from “Sam's Restaurant,” which the cardholder of the enhanced payment card account frequents on a regular basis, then the recommended decision score may be improved somewhat by applying a value to decrease the overall score (even if the purchase transaction amount is a high dollar value) to ensure that this particular transaction of the enhanced payment card account cardholder is not declined).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Friedlander and Lennon, the features as taught by White, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination, to include the teachings of White, in order to voids consumer or cardholder inconvenience and/or embarrassment (White, [0054]).
Regarding Claim 16, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson teaches the method of claim 1.
However the combination does not explicitly teach obtaining the exchange item rule associated with the first exchange item, wherein the exchange item rule indicates a first fraud abatement approach of a plurality of fraud abatement approaches to utilize as the fraud abatement approach when the fraud issue is of a first fraud issue, and indicates a second fraud abatement approach of the plurality of fraud abatement approaches to utilize as the fraud abatement approach when the fraud issue is of a second fraud issue..
White, on the other hand, teaches obtaining the exchange item rule associated with the first exchange item, wherein the exchange item rule indicates a first fraud abatement approach of a plurality of fraud abatement approaches to utilize as the fraud abatement approach when the fraud issue is of a first fraud issue, and indicates a second fraud abatement approach of the plurality of fraud abatement approaches to utilize as the fraud abatement approach when the fraud issue is of a second fraud issue.. ([0043-0044] in the United States, the MCC can be used to determine if a payment needs to be reported to the IRS for tax purposes. (first fraud issue) In addition, MCCs may be used by payment card issuer FIs to categorize, track and/or restrict certain types of purchases. In some implementations, a business classification and/or the MCC and/or the MID might be used to apply different business rules and/or logic decisions to the recommended decision score for enhanced payment card account transactions. For example, if the MCC indicates that the transaction is from “Sam's Restaurant,” which the cardholder of the enhanced payment card account frequents on a regular basis, then the recommended decision score may be improved somewhat by applying a value to decrease the overall score (even if the purchase transaction amount is a high dollar value) (second fraud issue) to ensure that this particular transaction of the enhanced payment card account cardholder is not declined).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Friedlander and Lennon, the features as taught by White, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination, to include the teachings of White, in order to voids consumer or cardholder inconvenience and/or embarrassment (White, [0054]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0278801 A1 to Friedlander in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 20170011387 A1 to Lennon in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0335641 A1 to White in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0292680 A1 to Wilson.
Regarding Claim 17, Friedlander in view of Lennon and White teaches the method of claim 16.
However the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first fraud issue is fraud associated with a seller computing device that last sold the first exchange item and the second fraud issue is fraud associated with a blockchain associated with the first exchange item.
Wilson, on the other hand, teaches wherein the first fraud issue is fraud associated with a seller computing device that last sold the first exchange item and the second fraud issue is fraud associated with a blockchain associated with the first exchange item. ([0082] A bad transaction scenario can result from, for example, a human error, a limit reached, an attempt to defraud the system, potential bugs, and the like. Errors are reported on the trader trade entry tool, risk dashboard, and member risk dashboard. The following summarizes an exemplary bad transaction occurring due to an ‘out of credit’ scenario. Trader Ta tries to submit, for example, a 1000 bitcoin trade with Trader Tb, who only has credit authorization for a 500 bitcoin trade. [0100] The digital asset intermediary electronic settlement platform server checks that tx2 is a valid transaction and broadcasts this to blockchain (1309). After an appropriate number of confirmations in the blockchain, seller multi-signature application controls an active balance of digital assets rights in the form of utxo2 for the balance of the time period (for example, 24 hours) that can be used to settle contra-transactions (1310). [0101] For any trade less than the total balance of the seller multi-signature control, granularity of the balances must be introduced and new redeems must be issued. Any transaction that uses an utxo as an input invalidates any other future ledger entries that would use that utxo as an input. Therefore, new redeems must be generated to ensure the user can withdraw rights.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Friedlander and Lennon, the features as taught by Wilson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination, to include the teachings of Wilson, in order to prevent fraudulent transactions (Wilson, [0064]).
Regarding Claim 18, Friedlander in view of Lennon and Wilson and White teaches the method of claim 17.
However the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first fraud issue is fraud associated with a seller computing device that last sold the first exchange item and the second fraud issue is fraud associated with a blockchain associated with the first exchange item.
Wilson, on the other hand, teaches wherein the second fraud issue is one or more of: determining a nonce of the blockchain is invalid; determining a hash of the blockchain is invalid; and determining a signature of the blockchain is invalid.. ([0039] A recipient may verify the cryptographic hashes and digital signatures to verify the chain of ownership. [0098] After an appropriate number of confirmations in the blockchain, the seller multi-signature application contains an active balance of digital assets in the form of utxo1 for the balance of the time frame (for example, 24 hours) that can be used to settle contra-transactions (1209). [0082] A bad transaction scenario can result from, for example, a human error, a limit reached, an attempt to defraud the system, potential bugs, and the like. Errors are reported on the trader trade entry tool, risk dashboard, and member risk dashboard. The following summarizes an exemplary bad transaction occurring due to an ‘out of credit’ scenario. Trader Ta tries to submit, for example, a 1000 bitcoin trade with Trader Tb, who only has credit authorization for a 500 bitcoin trade. [0100] The digital asset intermediary electronic settlement platform server checks that tx2 is a valid transaction and broadcasts this to blockchain (1309). After an appropriate number of confirmations in the blockchain, seller multi-signature application controls an active balance of digital assets rights in the form of utxo2 for the balance of the time period (for example, 24 hours) that can be used to settle contra-transactions (1310).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Friedlander and Lennon, the features as taught by Wilson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination, to include the teachings of Wilson, in order to prevent fraudulent transactions (Wilson, [0064]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are allowable over the prior art though rejected on other grounds (e.g. 35 USC 101, double patenting) as discussed above. The combination of elements and the claim as a whole are not found in the prior art.
Regarding Claim 19, neither Friedlander nor Lennon nor White nor Wilson, nor the totality of the prior art anticipate or render obvious determining the nonce is outside a subset of nonce values allowed by a secure custody protocol.
Claim 20 is dependent upon allowable claim 19.
While the prior art teaches some aspects and features of the claims, the Examiner emphasizes the unique combination of features as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Notably, these claims remain rejected on other grounds (e.g. 35 USC 101, double patenting) as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under double patenting have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the present rejection.
Examiner disagrees. The claims still recite an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the office action, above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of the claim under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant argues that the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the present rejection.
Examiner disagrees. The previously cited references teach the claims as amended. Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the office action, above.
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 Michelle T. Kringen whose telephone number is (571)270-0159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-6pm.
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, Kelly Campen can be reached on (571)272-6740. 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.
/MICHELLE T KRINGEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688