Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 19-25 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 16-August-2022. Domestic Benefit/National Stage priority has been claimed for Provisional Application 63/234,118 in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of 17-August-2021, as the priority date, for applicable claims.
No additional information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed to date.
The amendment to the Specification (Abstract on page 92), filed 24-July-2025, has been considered and approved.
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 1-7, 10-17, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claims 1, 13, and 20, the claims recite “A … method, comprising:
receiving, using at least one [employee], a message associated with a first exchange of data initiated between a first counterparty by a second counterparty during a temporal interval, the message comprising elements of first message data disposed within corresponding message fields, and the first message data characterizing the first data exchange;
obtaining, using the at least one [employee], elements of second message data from a data repository, the elements of second message data characterizing at least one second data exchange involving the first counterparty during the temporal interval
using the at least one [employee], determining a value of a first parameter for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange based on corresponding ones of the elements of first and second message data, and determining that the first parameter values for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange are inconsistent with an execution criterion; and
based on the determined inconsistency, performing operations, using the at least one [employee], that establish an availability of a product to the first counterparty based on the first parameter values for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange, and generating, using the at least one [employee], product data characterizing the product available to the first counterparty; and
transmitting, using the at least one [employee], notification data to … the first counterparty, the notification data comprising … content associated with the available product and with the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange, and … present at least a portion of the … content …, and the notification data being transmitted to the [first counterparty] prior to an execution of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange.”
The limitation of the claims recited above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically under fundamental economic principles or practices and/or interactions between people. The method recited above is a process of providing messages regarding a transaction (e.g. real-time payment between two parties) and providing the content based on analyzing the message. Performing transactions, receiving and analyzing messages regarding the transactions, and providing contents from the transactions are fundamental economic principles or practices. Additionally, the steps involve interactions with various parties associated with the transaction to receive messages, analyze messages, provide notifications, and present content. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element of “apparatus”, “communications interface”, “memory”, “processor”, “device”, “digital content”, “digital interface”, and “tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium” to perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. As disclosed by Specification:
[0166] “The processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable computers executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output”
[0167] “Computers suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, general or special purpose microprocessors or both, or any other kind of central processing unit … Moreover, a computer can be embedded in another device, such as a mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile audio or video player, a game console, a Global Positioning System (GPS) or an assisted Global Positioning System (AGPS) receiver, or a portable storage device, such as a universal serial bus (USB) flash drive, to name just a few”
[0168] “Computer-readable media suitable for storing computer program instructions and data include all forms of non-volatile memory, media and memory devices, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, such as EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks, such as internal hard disks or removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM disks”
[0169] “To provide for interaction with a user, such as user 101, embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented on a computer having a display device, such as a CRT (cathode ray tube) or LCD (liquid crystal display) monitor, for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointing device, such as a mouse or a trackball, by which the user can provide input to the computer. Other kinds of devices can be used to provide for interaction with a user as well”
These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g. generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public) merely applied to perform its basic functionalities (e.g. receive, transmit, and display data), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. Merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, determine, or display data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g. certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification cited above, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, based on response data generated by the device, perform operations that provision the available product to the first counterparty in accordance with the product data.” The claim provides further steps of performing operations to provision available product, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 3 and 14 recite “wherein: the product data comprises a product identifier and a second parameter value of the available product, and the notification data is associated with an offer to provision the available product to the first counterparty in accordance with the second parameter value; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive response data from the device via the communications interface; establish that the response data is associated with an acceptance of the offer to provision the available product to the first counterparty in accordance with the second parameter value; and perform operations that provision the available product to the first counterparty in accordance with the second parameter value.” The claims provide further details regarding the product data, and further steps to receive data, establish data, and perform operations to provision available product, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 4 and 15 recite “wherein: the received message is associated with a first real-time payment; the first notification data comprises additional digital content associated with a second real-time payment; the device is further configured to present at least a portion of the additional digital content within the digital interface; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine that the response data is associated with an approval of the second real-time payment; and establish that the response data is associated with the acceptance of the offer based on the determination that the response data is associated with the approval of the second real-time payment.” The claims provide further details regarding the notification data, and further steps to present data, determine data, and establish data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 5 and 16 recite “wherein: the product data comprises a product identifier and a second parameter value of the available product; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtain a qualification criterion associated with the product from the memory; and determine the second parameter value based on the qualification criterion and on the first parameter values for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange.” The claims provide further details regarding the product data, and further steps to obtain data and determine data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 6 and 17 recite “wherein: the first parameter value comprises a value of a behavioral parameter; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtain additional elements of message data from the memory, the additional elements of message data characterizing an additional exchange of data involving the first counterparty during a prior temporal interval; and determine the behavioral parameter value based on a portion of the elements of message data and the elements of additional message data.” The claims provide further details regarding the data, and further steps to obtain data and determine data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtain, from the memory, data characterizing a plurality of execution criteria; and based on an application of each of the plurality of execution criterion to the first parameter values, determine that the first parameter values are inconsistent with at least a subset of the execution criteria.” The claim provides further steps to obtain data and determine data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 10 and 19 recite “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtain, from the memory, mapping data associated with the message fields of the message; perform operations that obtain the elements of first message data from the message fields based on the mapping data; and store the elements of first message data within the memory, the elements of message data comprising a first identifier of the first counterparty, a second identifier of the second counterparty, and the first parameter value.” The claims provide further steps to obtain data, perform operations, and store data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites “wherein: the message fields of the received message are being structured in accordance with a standardized data-exchange protocol; and elements of the mapping data identify corresponding ones of the elements of message data and corresponding ones of the message fields.” The claim provides further details regarding the message, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtain, based on the mapping data, remittance information associated with the data exchange from one or more of the message fields, the remittance information comprising a uniform resource locator associated with elements of formatted data maintained by a computing system associated with the second counterparty; process the elements of formatted data; and obtain at least one of the first identifier, the second identifier, or the first parameter value characterizing the data exchange from the processed elements of formatted data.” The claim provides further steps to obtain data and process data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive the message from computing system associated with the second counterparty via the communications interface across a first programmatic channel of communications, the first programmatic channel of communications being established between the apparatus and the computing system associated with the second counterparty; and transmit the notification data to the device via the communications interface across a second programmatic channel of communications, the second programmatic channel of communications being established between the apparatus and an application program executed by the device, and the executed application program causing the device to present the portion of the digital content within the digital interface.” The claim provides further receive messages and transmit data through channel of communications, and display content, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 22 recites “wherein: the product data comprises a product identifier and a second parameter value of the available product; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: apply a trained artificial intelligence process to the elements of first message data and elements of second message data; and based on the application of the trained artificial intelligence process to the elements of first message data and elements of second message data, generate at least the second parameter value and determine that the first data exchange at the at least one second data exchange are consistent with second parameter value.” The claim provides additional element “trained artificial intelligence process”, which is merely applied as a black-box application to provide an input to provide an output without any technical steps on how it is being changed, manipulated, or improved, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtain (i) a value of one or more process parameters that characterize the trained artificial intelligence process and (ii) data that characterizes a composition of the elements of first message data and elements of second message data; generate, in accordance with the data that characterizes the composition, an input dataset based on the elements of first message data and elements of second message data; and apply the trained artificial intelligence process to the input dataset in accordance with the one or more process parameter values.” The claim provides further steps associated with the “trained artificial intelligence process”, which is merely applied as a black-box application to provide an input to provide an output without any technical steps on how it is being changed, manipulated, or improved, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 24 recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate the product data and to transmit the notification data to the device operable by the first counterparty within a predetermined time period of the receipt of the message associated with the first data exchange”. The claim provides further steps of generating data and transmitting data within a predetermined time period, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 25 recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine an aggregate value representative of the first parameter values for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange; determine that the aggregate value is inconsistent with the execution criterion; and based on the determined inconsistency between the aggregate value and the execution criterion, perform operations that establish an availability of a product to the first counterparty based on the first parameter values for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange”. The claim provides further steps of data analysis (e.g. compare data for inconsistency) associated with the transaction, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional element is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 2-7, 10-12, 14-19, and 21-25, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claims, each claim recites merely applying the generic computer system to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere “apply it” is not “significantly more”. Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 19-25 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 13-14, 16, 20-21, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSS (US 20120265681 A1), in view of Ivey et al. (US 20160005029 A1), and in view of Piel (US 20200007536 A1).
As per Claims 1, 13, and 20, ROSS discloses:
(Claim 1 Preamble) an apparatus comprising: a communications interface; a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the communications interface and to the memory, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to, (Claim 13 Preamble) a computer-implemented method, and (Claim 20 Preamble) a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method, comprising (See Figure 4, as disclosed [0023] “As still another example, in some embodiments, a single apparatus (e.g., the authorization apparatus 430) is configured to perform each and every portion of the process flow 100. It will also be understood that, in some embodiments, a transaction machine (e.g., the transaction machine 420) is configured to perform one or more (or all) of the portions of the process flow 100, and that in some embodiments, that transaction machine includes, is included in, and/or is embodied as the transaction machine referred to in block 110” wherein [0041] “Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments, the apparatus includes and/or is embodied as an authorization apparatus (e.g., the authorization apparatus 430 referred to in FIG. 4, etc.) that is configured to consider, authorize, and/or decline authorization requests and/or financial transactions. The apparatus configured to perform the process flow 100 can be configured to make credit limit determinations, eligibility determinations, credit limit increases, and/or sufficiency determinations in real time and/or automatically”, and see also [0143] “It will be understood that any suitable computer-readable medium may be utilized. The computer-readable medium may include, but is not limited to, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, such as a tangible electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, and/or semiconductor system, device, and/or other apparatus”):
receiving a message associated with a first exchange of data initiated between a first counterparty by a second counterparty during a temporal interval, the message comprising elements of first message data disposed within corresponding message fields, and the first message data characterizing the first data exchange (See Figure 2 – steps 205 to 225, as disclosed [0058] "As represented by block 205, the bank customer approaches the transaction machine for the purpose of engaging in a transaction using the transaction machine. As represented by block 210, the customer presents account information at the transaction machine" and [0059] "After being authenticated, the customer selects the transaction and/or agrees to the transaction amount, as represented by block 220. Then, as represented by block 225, the transaction machine sends an authorization request to the apparatus having the process flow 200, where the authorization request identifies and/or describes the transaction, the customer, the credit account, and/or the like" wherein the transaction is performed during a temporal interval, as disclosed [0077] “In addition, the apparatus having the process flow 200 can be configured to perform one or more portions of the process flow 200 in real time, in substantially real time, and/or at one or more predetermined times”);
…
determining a value of a first parameter for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange based on corresponding ones of the elements of first and second message data, and determining that the first parameter values are inconsistent with an execution criterion (See Figure 2 – steps 230 to 260, as disclosed [0060] "However, if the apparatus having the process flow 200 determines that the account does not have sufficient available credit to cover the transaction, then the apparatus is determines whether the credit account (and/or customer) is eligible for a credit limit increase, as represented by block 250" and [0062] "On the other hand, if the apparatus having the process flow 200 determines that the credit account (and/or customer) is eligible for the credit limit increase, then the apparatus is configured to determine the amount of the credit limit increase, as represented by block 260. It will be understood that the apparatus can be configured to determine a credit limit increase of any amount and can make this determination in any way"); and
based on the determined inconsistency, perform operations that establish an availability of a product to the first counterparty based on the first parameter values of each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange, and generating product data characterizing a product available to the first counterparty, and transmitting notification data to a device operable by the first counterparty, the notification data comprising digital content associated with the available product and with the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange, and the device being configured to present at least a portion of the digital content within a digital interface, and the notification data being transmitted to the device prior to an execution of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange (See Figure 2 – steps 265 to 240, wherein the prompt to increase the credit limit is presented to the customer prior to completing the transaction, as disclosed [0060] "However, if the apparatus having the process flow 200 determines that the account does not have sufficient available credit to cover the transaction, then the apparatus is determines whether the credit account (and/or customer) is eligible for a credit limit increase, as represented by block 250" and [0062] "On the other hand, if the apparatus having the process flow 200 determines that the credit account (and/or customer) is eligible for the credit limit increase, then the apparatus is configured to determine the amount of the credit limit increase, as represented by block 260. It will be understood that the apparatus can be configured to determine a credit limit increase of any amount and can make this determination in any way" wherein the notification may be provided to the user’s mobile phone as disclosed [0065] “In some embodiments, the apparatus prompts the customer via a mobile device accessible to and/or carried, possessed, owned, and/or controlled by the customer during the transaction. The mobile device can include any number and/or type of mobile device(s)” and [0066] “Further regarding block 265, the prompting the customer may include sending and/or presenting one or more questions, instructions, requests, messages, graphics, sounds, phone calls, notifications, text messages (e.g., SMS messages, MMS messages, EMS messages, etc.), actionable alerts, instant messages, voice messages, voice recordings, interactive voice response (IVR) communications, pages, emails, communications specific to one or more social media networks and/or applications (e.g., Facebook.RTM., Twitter.RTM., MySpace.RTM., etc.), and/or the like”).
Although ROSS teaches of performing a transaction (e.g. first data exchange) which involves authentication of the customer’s credit account (e.g. second data exchange) during a predetermined time and prompting the user for credit limit increase prior to the execution of the transaction, the prior art doesn’t seem to explicitly disclose the steps associated with the second data exchange which involves obtaining data from data repository (e.g. stored information). However, Ivey discloses:
receiving a message associated with a first exchange of data initiated between a first counterparty by a second counterparty during a temporal interval, the message comprising elements of first message data disposed within corresponding message fields, and the first message data characterizing the first data exchange (See Figure 3 – step 302, as disclosed [0040] “FIG. 3 is a flow chart of a method 300 of dynamically tracking real-time transaction request to detect fraud. At block 302 in the method 300, an application such as the fraud detection application 106 in FIG. 1 may receive a request. This request may comprise a request to view or access a website or part of a website, or may be a request for a transaction that may be associated with a card, including a credit card, debit card, or stored-value card”. The authentication performed on transaction requests determines the temporal interval, or “velocity” as defined in the prior art, as disclosed [0037] “As used herein, the “velocity” may be the rate of transactions per a time window (e.g., a predetermined period of time) in light of an at least one additional variable”. See also various examples, as disclosed [0052] “In an embodiment, the velocity as discussed herein may also comprise a measurement of an aggregate value of transactions over time associated with a card, transaction context, or party, for example, a bulk seller. This time period may be a lifetime threshold or may be a predetermined period, for example, a maximum of $1000 in trade/sale requests may be made by a part within 6 months” or see also Example 1 [0072] “The application determines that an average 10 outlook.com email addresses are typically associated with requests during a predetermined period, for example, in a day”);
obtaining elements of second message data from a data repository, the elements of second message data characterizing at least one second data exchange involving the first counterparty during the temporal interval (See Figure 3 – step 328, as disclosed [0043] “In an embodiment, at block 328, the plurality of artifacts associated with the profile (including cases where there is an anonymous profile) are retrieved and a determination is made at block 330 as to whether the artifacts are on a banned list and/or if a risk score or other artifact associated with the request (e.g., the profile), is above a predetermined threshold”, wherein the data regarding the profile is retrieved to determine the risk score within the temporal interval (e.g. velocity), as disclosed [0021] “A profile and/or an anonymous profile may be associated with a risk score, which may be based upon the artifacts associated with a profile … This score may be based upon the artifacts associated with the profile as well as other factors including a velocity associated with the profile, the velocity is discussed in detail below”)
determining a value of a first parameter for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange based on corresponding ones of the elements of first and second message data, and determining that the first parameter values … are inconsistent with an execution criterion (See Figure 3 – step 330, as disclosed [0043] “In an embodiment, at block 328, the plurality of artifacts associated with the profile (including cases where there is an anonymous profile) are retrieved and a determination is made at block 330 as to whether the artifacts are on a banned list and/or if a risk score or other artifact associated with the request (e.g., the profile), is above a predetermined threshold”); and
based on the determined inconsistency, … transmitting notification data to a device operable by the first counterparty, the notification data comprising digital content associated … with the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange, and the device being configured to present at least a portion of the digital content within a digital interface, and the notification data being transmitted to the device prior to an execution of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange ([0026] “In an embodiment, the application may also evaluate the stored-value card associated with the request … If a profile is associated with the request, the application may determine if the stored-value card is associated with the profile. If it is, then the request may be processed as discussed herein, and if it is not, the request may be denied as discussed herein, and a profile, if any, that the stored-value card is associated with, as determined by a list from the data stores discussed herein, the profile may be flagged or a notification may be sent to a contact associated with the profile that an attempted use of the card occurred” or see also [0052] “Once this threshold is exceeded, additional identification information may be requested and verified before the bulk seller is approved to continue selling, at which point an additional threshold may be set. In some embodiments, the bulk seller receives a notification before the threshold is exceeded, alerting them to this additional verification so that they may submit information for pre-approval and not have their services interrupted (if verified with the additional information)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the profile authentication for transactions which involves retrieving data and verification of data during the specific predetermined time period as in Ivey in the system executing the method of ROSS with the motivation of offering to [0005] “protecting their systems and bottom line from fraud, whether that fraud stems from online or in-store purchases and across a wide range of purchase methods from the use of cash, to checks, to debit, credit, and stored-value cards” as taught by Ivey over that of ROSS.
Although ROSS teaches of performing a transaction (e.g. first data exchange) which involves authentication of the customer’s credit account (e.g. second data exchange) during a predetermined time and prompting the user for credit limit increase prior to the execution of the transaction, the prior art doesn’t seem to explicitly disclose the steps regarding determining a value of the first parameter for each of the first and second data exchange by which each values are inconsistent with an execution criterion. However, Piel discloses:
determining a value of a first parameter for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange based on corresponding ones of the elements of first and second message data (See Figure 6 – steps 602 and 608, as disclosed [0110] “Method 600 includes receiving 602 a first authentication request from a requesting computer device including an account identifier, a first timestamp and at least one authentication factor, and determining 604 a first security level of the first authentication request based upon the at least one authentication factor” and [0111] “Method 600 includes receiving 608 a second authentication request including the account identifier and a second timestamp, determining 610 an authentication rule stored applies to the second authentication request based at least in part on the account identifier, the authentication rule defining a timeframe and an authentication threshold, and retrieving 612 authentication factor data based on the timeframe, the second time stamp, and the account identifier”), and determining that the first parameter values for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange are inconsistent with an execution criterion (See Figure 6 – steps 614 and 616, as disclosed [0111] “Method 600 further includes comparing 614 the stored security levels to the authentication threshold, determining 616 an authentication response based on the comparison” wherein the response may determine as inconsistent with an execution criterion (e.g. declining authentication requested based on authentication rules), as disclosed [0048] “The AC computing device is configured to generate authentication responses based on authentication rules, where the stored authentication rules indicate conditions for approving or declining an authentication request”);
based on the determined inconsistency, perform operations that establish an availability of a product to the first counterparty based on the first parameter values for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange … ([0048] “The AC computing device is configured to generate authentication responses based on authentication rules, where the stored authentication rules indicate conditions for approving or declining an authentication request” which teaches that the authentication response, based on the determined inconsistency, of approving or declining the transaction establishes the availability of the product);
transmitting notification data to a device operable by the first counterparty, the notification data comprising digital content associated with the available product and with the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange, and the device being configured to present at least a portion of the digital content within a digital interface, and the notification data being transmitted to the device prior to an execution of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange ([0090] “AC computing device 160 generates and transmits authentication response 318 to merchant computing device 110. Additionally or alternatively, AC computing device may transmit authentication response 318 to the payment network, potentially including a bank (e.g., issuer) associated with the account identified in the authentication request” or see also another example of requesting additional authentication based on the authentication response, as disclosed [0057] “For example, an authentication rule may include a URI of a system to contact when the rule results in declining an authentication request. For example, an authentication response may include a phone number (e.g., URI) to call, where a user may call the number from a trusted number (e.g., possession factor) and enter a PIN to confirm their identity. In another example, the authentication response may include a URL (e.g., URI) of a webserver, where a user may enter a username and password (e.g., knowledge factor) to confirm their identity”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize first and second authentication and applying the rules on each authentication to determine inconsistent values as in Piel in the system executing the method of ROSS with the motivation of offering to [0001-0004] increase security, reduce the likelihood of fraud, decrease time spent processing authentication factors, and improve user experience as taught by Piel over that of ROSS.
As per claim 2, ROSS teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, based on response data generated by the device, perform operations that provision the available product to the first counterparty in accordance with the product data (See Figure 2 – steps 270 to 280, as disclosed [0072] “After the customer has been prompted, the apparatus is configured to determine whether the customer has consented to the credit limit increase, as represented by block 270. It will be understood that the customer may consent to the credit limit increase in any way. In some embodiments, the customer consents to the credit limit increase via a mobile device accessible to and/or carried, possessed, owned, and/or controlled by the customer during the transaction” wherein [0075] “However, if the customer does consent to the credit limit increase, then the apparatus is configured to store the customer's consent in a datastore (e.g., computer-readable memory, etc.), as represented by block 275. In addition, the apparatus also increases the credit limit for the credit account, as represented by block 280”).
As per claims 3 and 14, ROSS teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein:
the product data comprises a product identifier and a second parameter value of the available product, and the notification data is associated with an offer to provision the available product to the first counterparty in accordance with the second parameter value ([0021] “As represented by block 120, the apparatus is also configured to determine, based at least partially on the transaction information, that at least a predetermined portion of the credit limit (e.g., 80% of the credit limit, all of the credit limit, etc.) will be used (e.g., met, reached, etc.) as a result of the transaction. In addition, as represented by block 130, the apparatus is further configured to determine that the credit account is eligible for a credit limit increase” wherein the credit limit increase comprises various parameter values (e.g. second parameter value) for the holder to choose an amount, as disclosed [0044] “In some embodiments, the apparatus having the process flow 100 is configured to increase the credit limit based at least partially on an amount selected by the holder. Specifically, in some embodiments, the apparatus is configured to: (a) prompt the holder, during the transaction (and/or via a mobile device accessible to the holder, via the transaction machine, etc.), to select an amount for a credit limit increase”); and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive response data from the device via the communications interface ([0044] “(b) receive the holder's selected amount for the credit limit increase (e.g., via the mobile device, via the transaction machine, etc.)”);
establish that the response data is associated with an acceptance of the offer to provision the available product to the first counterparty in accordance with the second parameter value ([0044] “(b) receive the holder's selected amount for the credit limit increase (e.g., via the mobile device, via the transaction machine, etc.)”); and
perform operations that provision the available product to the first counterparty in accordance with the second parameter value ([0044] “(c) increase the credit limit based at least partially on the selected amount. In some of these embodiments, the apparatus is configured to increase the credit limit by the holder's selected amount. However, in other embodiments, the amount of the increase is not equal to the holder's selected amount but is based at least partially on, for example, the customer's credit score in addition to the customer's selected amount”).
As per claims 5 and 16, ROSS teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein:
the product data comprises a product identifier and a second parameter value of the available product ([0021] “As represented by block 120, the apparatus is also configured to determine, based at least partially on the transaction information, that at least a predetermined portion of the credit limit (e.g., 80% of the credit limit, all of the credit limit, etc.) will be used (e.g., met, reached, etc.) as a result of the transaction. In addition, as represented by block 130, the apparatus is further configured to determine that the credit account is eligible for a credit limit increase”); and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain a qualification criterion associated with the product from the memory ([0042] “In some embodiments, the apparatus is configured to make the eligibility determination based at least partially on the credit limit determination. In some embodiments, the apparatus is additionally or alternatively configured to make the eligibility determination based at least partially on a credit score of the holder, the nature of the relationship between the holder and the financial institution that provides the credit limit increase service (e.g., length of time the holder has been an account holder, the number of accounts the holder holds at the financial institution, etc.), the number of over limit transactions the holder and/or credit account has incurred in a predetermined period of time (e.g., the past six months), the annual income of the holder, and/or the like”); and
determine the second parameter value based on the qualification criterion and on the first parameter values for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange ([0043] “Regarding block 140, the apparatus having the process flow 140 can be configured to increase the credit limit by any amount” and also [0042] “In some embodiments, the eligibility determination is based at least partially on the transaction information (e.g., based on the transaction amount, the type of transaction, the channel through which the transaction occurred, when the transaction occurred, an MCC associated with the transaction, etc.)”).
As per claim 21, ROSS teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive the message from computing system associated with the second counterparty via the communications interface across a first programmatic channel of communications, the first programmatic channel of communications being established between the apparatus and the computing system associated with the second counterparty ([0011] “In other embodiments, still another method is provided that includes: (a) presenting, by a holder of an account, account information at a transaction machine to engage in a transaction, where the account information is associated with a credit account involved in the transaction, and where the credit account has a credit limit”); and
transmit the notification data to the device via the communications interface across a second programmatic channel of communications, the second programmatic channel of communications being established between the apparatus and an application program executed by the device, and the executed application program causing the device to present the portion of the digital content within the digital interface ([0065] “In some embodiments, the apparatus prompts the customer via a mobile device accessible to and/or carried, possessed, owned, and/or controlled by the customer during the transaction. The mobile device can include any number and/or type of mobile device(s)” and [0066] “Further regarding block 265, the prompting the customer may include sending and/or presenting one or more questions, instructions, requests, messages, graphics, sounds, phone calls, notifications, text messages (e.g., SMS messages, MMS messages, EMS messages, etc.), actionable alerts, instant messages, voice messages, voice recordings, interactive voice response (IVR) communications, pages, emails, communications specific to one or more social media networks and/or applications (e.g., Facebook.RTM., Twitter.RTM., MySpace.RTM., etc.), and/or the like”).
As per claim 24, ROSS teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate the product data and to transmit the notification data to the device operable by the first counterparty within a predetermined time period of the receipt of the message associated with the first data exchange ([0065] “After determining the amount of the credit limit increase, the apparatus having the process flow 200 is configured to prompt the customer to consent to the credit limit increase, as represented by block 265.” wherein the prompt must receive a response within a predetermined period of time, as disclosed [0075] “If the customer indicates that he does not consent to the credit limit increase (or if the apparatus does not receive a response from the customer within a predetermined period of time (e.g., two minutes)), then the apparatus is configured to decline the authorization request, as represented by block 255”).
As per Claim 25, ROSS may not explicitly disclose, but Piel discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine an aggregate value representative of the first parameter values for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange ([0043] “In certain embodiments, the security level may include any of authentication score, a risk score, and/or a trust score. For example, authentication requests may be scored on a range from 0 to 100 based on the included authentication factors. In another embodiment, the security level may be an indicator of multifactor authentication”);
determine that the aggregate value is inconsistent with the execution criterion ([0049] “In some embodiment, authentication rules include a timeframe and a security level threshold … The security level threshold includes a security level, and/or a number of security levels. For example, the security level threshold may define a minimum security level, where the security level includes a risk score, and/or the security level threshold may define a set of security levels, where the security level includes indicators of authentication types” wherein [0059] “(vii) comparing the stored security levels to the authentication threshold”); and
based on the determined inconsistency between the aggregate value and the execution criterion, perform operations that establish an availability of a product to the first counterparty based on the first parameter values for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange ([0059] “(vii) comparing the stored security levels to the authentication threshold, (viii) determining an authentication response based on the comparison”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the security level with the authentication factors indicating the scores to determine inconsistent values as in Piel in the system executing the method of ROSS with the motivation of offering to [0001-0004] increase security, reduce the likelihood of fraud, decrease time spent processing authentication factors, and improve user experience as taught by Piel over that of ROSS.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSS, in view of Ivey, in view of Piel, and in view of KANG (US 20190244233 A1).
As per claims 4 and 15, ROSS teaches the apparatus of claim 3, and the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein:
the received message is associated with a first real-time payment ([0077] “In addition, the apparatus having the process flow 200 can be configured to perform one or more portions of the process flow 200 in real time, in substantially real time, and/or at one or more predetermined times”);
ROSS may not explicitly disclose, but KANG teaches:
the first notification data comprises additional digital content associated with a second real-time payment ([0067] “Otherwise, the buyer's confirmation of purchase to pay for the product at the initial price may be regarded as the first payment and then the buyer's real payment at discounted price due to the random additional discount will be regarded as the second payment. In this case, the real payment for product with cash or credit card is done only once. Further, after the first real payment for product, an amount of points equal to the discounted amount due to random additional discount may be provided to the buyer and the buyer may cancel the first payment and make a second payment using the points at a discounted price”);
the device is further configured to present at least a portion of the additional digital content within the digital interface ([0159] “The random additional discount amount D.sub.i satisfying the predetermined condition and/or the random additional discount price are displayed on the buyer terminal 200 at step S360”); and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine that the response data is associated with an approval of the second real-time payment ([0160] “Then, the buyer proceeds with the second payment for the same product at the random additional discount price displayed on the buyer terminal 200 at step S370” and also [0162] “If the random additional discount process has been repeated two or more times, the buyer terminal 200 may make the second payment by selecting the desired price among the offered several random additional discount prices at step S370”); and
establish that the response data is associated with the acceptance of the offer based on the determination that the response data is associated with the approval of the second real-time payment ([0163] “When the buyer's payment of product is completed, or when a predetermined period for settlement between the open market operator and the seller comes, the open market operator and the seller will settle the result of the random additional discount at step S390”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize additional discount applied to second transaction as in KANG in the system executing the method of ROSS with the motivation of offering to [0003-0010] allow seller to secure their own profits while increasing user satisfaction by providing discounts as taught by KANG over that of ROSS.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSS, in view of Ivey, in view of Piel, and in view of Fu (US 20180082229 A1).
As per claims 6 and 17, ROSS may not explicitly disclose, but Fu teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein:
the first parameter value comprises a value of a behavioral parameter (See Figure 2 – step 210, as disclosed [0033] “At 210, service data for a user, including at least one type of the user's behavior data, is obtained. The service data can be any data associated with a service currently performed by the user, such as an online transaction, payment, gaming, or streaming … A user can initiate a real-time transaction which may generate and transmit transaction data”); and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain additional elements of message data from the memory, the additional elements of message data characterizing an additional exchange of data involving the first counterparty during a prior temporal interval (See Figure 2 – step 220 which uses a risk model regarding the user’s behavior data, wherein the risk model is built from historical user behavior data during a time period as shown in Figure 1, which is further disclosed [0018] “At 110, at least one type of a plurality of users' historical behavioral data of a first time period is obtained. A user's historical behavioral data can be any data associated with the user's interactions with a third party or a service system for performing the service of a historical time period”); and
determine the behavioral parameter value based on a portion of the elements of message data and the elements of additional message data ([0027] “In some implementations, the risk model can be generated based on a decision tree, wherein the decision tree is constructed based on at least one safety threshold determined based on at least one of the historical behavior data of the first time period or the historical behavior data of the second period”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize historical behavior data over period of time to generate a risk model with threshold as in Fu in the system executing the method of ROSS with the motivation of offering to [0003-0008] “improve data exchange security and user experience during identity authentication” as taught by Fu over that of ROSS.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSS, in view of Ivey, in view of Piel, and in view of Griffin et al. (US 20110246355 A1).
As per claim 7, ROSS may not explicitly disclose, but Griffin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain, from the memory, data characterizing a plurality of execution criteria (See Figure 3 – steps 315 to 345, which discloses a plurality of execution criteria, such as decision block 315 “does the credit card account have over limit protection through a source account?”, decision block 320 “does the source account have sufficient funds to offset the overage and an over limit protection fee?” and decision block 345 “has a holder of the credit card account opted in to an over limit service provided by a creditor associated with the credit card account?”); and
based on an application of each of the plurality of execution criterion to the first parameter values, determine that the first parameter values are inconsistent with at least a subset of the execution criteria (See Figure 3 – steps 315 to 345 wherein the decision block leads to “No”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize plurality of execution criteria and determining the inconsistency as in Griffin in the system executing the method of ROSS with the motivation of offering to [0002] improve the methods to help mitigate and/or avoid customers against the consequences of occasionally exceeding credit limits and/or accidentally making financial mistakes as taught by Griffin over that of ROSS.
Claims 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSS, in view of Ivey, in view of Piel, and in view of Soviany (US 20150317749 A1).
As per claims 10 and 19, ROSS may not explicitly disclose, but Soviany teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain, from the memory, mapping data associated with the message fields of the message ([0050] “The current transaction data record comprises, for example, the encrypted credit card number, the transaction amount, the amount, the requesting merchant identifier, time of the financial transaction and other data”);
perform operations that obtain the elements of first message data from the message fields based on the mapping data ([0050] “The components of the current transaction data records are mapped in a mapping engine 250 to input fields”); and
store the elements of first message data within the memory, the elements of message data comprising a first identifier of the first counterparty, a second identifier of the second counterparty, and the first parameter value ([0050] “The components of the current transaction data records are mapped in a mapping engine 250 to input fields, such as but not limited to CARD_NUMBER for the credit card number, AMOUNT for the transaction amount to be approved, and MERCHANT_ID for the identification parameter for identifying the requesting merchant. The definitions and mappings are stored in a data definition repository 230”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize mapping of transaction data and storing the data as in Soviany in the system executing the method of ROSS with the motivation of offering to [0007-0011] reduce fraud in the financial industry such as in card payment systems as taught by Soviany over that of ROSS.
As per claim 11, ROSS may not explicitly disclose, but Soviany teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein:
the message fields of the received message are structured in accordance with a standardized data-exchange protocol ([0044] “For card-based transactions there is, for example, an ISO norm (ISO 8583) that defines a message format and a communication flow for the data records representing the financial messages relating to the financial transactions so that different financial systems can exchange transaction requests and responses”); and
elements of the mapping data identify corresponding ones of the elements of message data and corresponding ones of the message fields ([0044] “The data record for the financial message contains information derived from the card (e.g., an account number), a terminal (e.g., a merchant number), a transaction (e.g., an amount), together with other data items generated dynamically by the transaction-acquiring device or added by intervening systems”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize card-based transactions comprising ISO norm messages as in Soviany in the system executing the method of ROSS with the motivation of offering to [0007-0011] reduce fraud in the financial industry such as in card payment systems as taught by Soviany over that of ROSS.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSS, in view of Ivey, in view of Piel, in view of Soviany, and in view of Benkreira et al. (US 20210342823 A1).
As per claim 12, ROSS may not explicitly disclose, but Benkreira teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain, based on the mapping data, remittance information associated with the data exchange from one or more of the message fields, the remittance information comprising a uniform resource locator associated with elements of formatted data maintained by a computing system associated with the second counterparty ([0049] “In a variety of embodiments, if the user allows the electronic payment server to monitor the usage of the browser via the browser extension, the merchant information may be cached in the local cache of the user device. The cache information may include the merchant name, URLs, social media handles of the merchant, and customer service email or phone number handle of merchant, and/or any information that maybe retrieved from the merchant's website”);
process the elements of formatted data ([0057] “The electronic payment server may search for the merchant identifier in the transaction record and map it to the merchant information captured in the cache information of the browser”); and
obtain at least one of the first identifier, the second identifier, or the first parameter value characterizing the data exchange from the processed elements of formatted data ([0057] “After this transaction record is matched up with the cache information captured in the browser, the electronic payment server may infer that the same merchant corresponds to the URL http://www.joessportsgameshop, and the friendly merchant name “Joe's Sports and Game Shop.””).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the URL to obtain second identifier (e.g. merchant name) as in Benkreira in the system executing the method of ROSS with the motivation of offering to [0002-0003] “improve the quality, efficiency, and speed of processing transaction data to offer insights into the details of the transactions and enhancing merchant databases using crowdsourced browser data” as taught by Benkreira over that of ROSS.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSS, in view of Ivey, in view of Piel, and in view of KIM et al. (US 20200311236 A1).
As per claim 22, ROSS may not explicitly disclose, but KIM teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the product data comprises a product identifier and a second parameter value of the available product ([0023] “a method for operating an electronic device that performs multimodal biometric authentication, the method including normalizing a first decision score for first biometric information acquired by a first biometric sensor on the basis of positive data. normalizing a second decision score for second biometric information acquired by a second biometric sensor on the basis of the positive data, generating a decision function model for combined matching of the first and second decision scores normalized based on the positive data, and setting a threshold score by controlling a fixed false negative rate (FNR) in the decision function model, and performing user authentication for the first and second biometric information based on the decision function model to which the set threshold score is applied”); and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
apply a trained artificial intelligence process to the elements of first message data and elements of second message data ([0129] “For the score fusion scheme, various artificial intelligence algorithms for combining matching scores are used”); and
based on the application of the trained artificial intelligence process to the elements of first message data and elements of second message data, generate at least the second parameter value and determine that the first data exchange at the at least one second data exchange are consistent with second parameter value ([0129] “For the score fusion scheme, various artificial intelligence algorithms for combining matching scores are used. Algorithms that are used for the score fusion scheme may include combination-based score fusion algorithms, classifier-based score fusion algorithms, density-based score fusion algorithms, and so on”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize artificial intelligence algorithms applied for score fusion scheme in first and second authentication methods as in KIM in the system executing the method of ROSS with the motivation of offering to [0009-0011] improve complex authentication methods and reduce the cost of such systems as taught by KIM over that of ROSS.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSS, in view of Ivey, in view of Piel, in view of KIM, and in view of Petch et al. (US 11423067 B1).
As per claim 23, ROSS may not explicitly disclose, but Petch teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain (i) a value of one or more process parameters that characterize the trained artificial intelligence process and (ii) data that characterizes a composition of the elements of first message data and elements of second message data ([Col 7 Lines 46-54] “In some embodiments, the systems and methods described herein may be configured to use an artificial intelligence engine that uses at least one machine learning model configured to perform natural language processing techniques. The systems and methods described herein may be configured to use the artificial intelligence engine to identify the information corresponding to the one or more requests for information that include free form textual information”);
generate, in accordance with the data that characterizes the composition, an input dataset based on the elements of first message data and elements of second message data ([Col 27 Lines 11-20] “The artificial intelligence engine may use one or more machine learning models to perform at least one of the embodiments disclosed herein … The machine learning models may be trained to identify natural language (e.g., human language) provided by the user in response to requests for information on the project questionnaire, to identify domains associated with data objects, and/or to iteratively identify data object combinations, as described”); and
apply the trained artificial intelligence process to the input dataset in accordance with the one or more process parameter values ([Col 14 Lines 14-24] “The systems and methods described herein may be configured to generate, using an artificial intelligence engine configured to use at least one machine learning model configured to identify data object combinations, a second set of data object combinations using the data objects that appear in each of the at least two data object combinations of the first set of data object combinations and each possible combination of data objects that do not appear in at least one data object combination of the at least two data object combinations of the first set of data object combinations”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize artificial intelligence engine using trained machine learning models to determine datasets as in Petch in the system executing the method of ROSS with the motivation of offering to [Col 1 and 2] provide an evolutionary optimization system to improve data set combinations as taught by Petch over that of ROSS.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14, filed 20-June-2025, with respect to Claim Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previously applied claim objection to claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14 to 21, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends, see pages 15 to 17, that the prior art reference Ross does not teach the claim limitation “receive a message associated with a first exchange of data initiated between a first counterparty by a second counterparty during a temporal interval, the message comprising elements of first message data disposed within corresponding message fields, and the first message data characterizing the first data exchange”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Figure 2 – steps 205 to 225 and [0058] and [0059] in Ross teaches of the customer engaging in a transaction with the transaction machine (i.e. exchange of data initiated between the two counterparties), wherein performing a transaction would exchange messages (i.e. message associated with a first exchange of data), wherein the transaction is performed during a temporal interval (e.g. predetermined time) as disclosed by [0077]. Ross also teaches the claim limitation regarding the “second message data”, wherein the steps also include an authentication or authorization request (i.e. second data exchange), which determines whether to perform a credit increase, or approve or deny the transaction based on the determined inconsistency, and the digital content (e.g. credit increase) is prompted to the user prior to completing the transaction as a notification. Therefore, the prior art Ross teaches the claim limitations for at least the cited disclosures above. However, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is in view of the combination of the referenced prior arts and not just one sole prior art reference.
Applicant contends, see pages 17 to 18, that the prior art reference Ivey does not teach the claim limitations regarding the “second message data”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed above under 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Figure 3 – step 302 and [0040] teaches a transaction request (i.e. first message exchange) with a fraud detection request (i.e. second message exchange), wherein Figure 3 – step 328 and [0043] teaches the elements of second message data retrieved from the database (i.e. artifacts associated with the profile used for fraud detection), which determines the inconsistency for the transaction. Therefore, the prior art Ivey teaches the claim limitations for at least the cited disclosures above.
Applicant contends, see pages 19 to 20, that the referenced prior art Piel does not teach the claim limitation “determine a value of a first parameter for each of the first data exchange and the at least one second data exchange based on corresponding ones of the elements of first and second message data”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed above under 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Figure 6 – steps 602 and 608, [0110], and [0111] discloses a first authentication request (i.e. first data exchange parameter value) and a second authentication request (i.e. second data exchange parameter value), wherein Figure 6 – steps 614 and 616, and [0111] determines the inconsistency for the authentication requests. Based on the determined inconsistency (i.e. authentication response), notification data may be transmitted, as disclosed by [0048], [0090], and [0057]. Therefore, the prior art Piel teaches the claim limitations for at least the cited disclosures above. In view of the combination of the referenced prior arts, for at least the cited disclosures, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 21 to 29, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends, see pages 21 to 23, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. processor, device, etc.), under BRI, the claims recite a process or series of steps involved with performing a transaction by exchanging messages and analyzing the messages between the associated parties, which is certain methods of organizing human activities. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant contends, see pages 23 to 26, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea. The claims sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how the computer performs the specific technical steps to transmit the messages in real-time without causing any delay, how the underlying technology is improved to perform the steps in real-time and contemporaneously, etc.), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant contends, see pages 27 to 28, that the claims amount to “significantly more”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the claims, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. Also, the additional elements are generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public, which does not require any specialized hardware or equipment, which are merely applied to perform its basic functionalities (e.g. receive, transmit, and display data). Mere “apply it” is not “significantly more”. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Darling (US 20170185724 A1) discloses [0069] “In some embodiments, in response to determining that the discount program includes two or more discounts, the system 200 performs the second card transaction or provides the refund by determining whether at least one of the two or more discounts is applicable to the card transaction. In response to determining that at least one of the two or more discounts is applicable to the card transaction, the system 200 performs the second card transaction or provides the refund for the second amount”.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY H JUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights