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 .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the application filed on 6/12/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for prior priority dates including:
This application has PRO 63/245,586 09/17/2021
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.
All claims 1,3,6,8-11,13,16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
All claims are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 11 and product Claim 16 (herein called Additional Independent Claims). The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of
receiving, at a transaction management service, a received transaction, wherein the received transaction includes a payment product identifier associated with an initiating customer, the payment product identifier being a parameter of an internal application programming interface (API) only accessible within a private communication network and provided by a payment processing organization of the received transaction, the internal API being based on simple object access protocol (SOAP) or representational state transfer (REST);
executing, by the transaction management service, a first query against a customer information database, wherein the first query includes the payment product identifier as a lookup key, and wherein the first query returns a party key and context data, wherein the party key uniquely identifies the customer associated with a payment product of the received transaction;
executing, by the transaction management service, a second query against the customer information database, wherein the second query uses the party key as a lookup parameter and returns customer context information, the customer context information including a number of accounts associated with the initiating customer and the balance on the number of accounts;
generating, by the transaction management service, a transaction challenge record, wherein the transaction challenge record includes the payment product identifier, the party key, and a challenge identifier, wherein the challenge identifier uniquely identifies a challenge based on the customer context information and the received transaction;
generating, by the transaction management service, a transaction event trigger, wherein the transaction event trigger is based on the transaction challenge record;
transmitting a notification to a user device, wherein the notification includes the challenge identifier and is based on the transaction event trigger;
receiving, from the user device, a validation communication, wherein the validation communication validates the received transaction and includes the challenge identifier;
generating, by the transaction management service, service options based on the customer context information, the service options including applying an amount of the received transaction to the number of accounts based on the balance of the number of accounts;
transmitting, by the transaction management service, the service options to the user device; and
receiving, at the transaction management service, instructions with respect to the received transaction based on the service options.
persisting, by the transaction management service, a transaction decision from the user device made based on the service options to a transaction decision database; and
training, by the transaction management service, a machine learning model to detect fraud of a next received transaction based on the transaction decision of the transaction decision database.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “receiving instructions with respect to the received transaction based on the service options.” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “at the transaction management service and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, including instructions stored thereon for facilitating application-based management of transactions” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims are not patent-eligible.
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 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 1,3,6,8-11,13,16 and 18 listed below are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosner (U.S. Patent Pub 2022/0138803) in view of Kend (U.S. Patent Pub 2015/0106216) in view of Van=Van OS (US Patent Pub 2016/0224973)
Re claim 1 & 11 & 16: Rosner discloses:
A method and system and comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, including instructions stored thereon for facilitating application-based management of transactions, which when read and executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform steps comprising:
receiving, at a transaction management service, a received transaction, wherein the received transaction includes a payment product identifier associated with an initiating customer, the payment product identifier being a parameter of an internal application programming interface (API) only accessible within a private communication network and
provided by a payment processing organization of the received transaction, the internal API being based on simple object access protocol (SOAP) or representational state transfer (REST); (see Rosner Figure 3 item 305 + para 0078)
executing, by the transaction management service, a first query against a customer information database, wherein the first query includes the payment product identifier as a lookup key, and wherein the first query returns a party key and context data, wherein the party key uniquely identifies the customer associated with a payment product of the received transaction; (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-350 + para 0033)
executing, by the transaction management service, a second query against the customer information database, wherein the second query uses the party key as a lookup parameter and returns customer context information, the customer context information including a number of accounts associated with the initiating customer and the balance on the number of accounts; (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-350 + para 0033)
generating, by the transaction management service, a transaction challenge record, wherein the transaction challenge record includes the payment product identifier, the party key, and a challenge identifier, wherein the challenge identifier uniquely identifies a challenge based on the customer context information and the received transaction; (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-350 + abstract “where the customer identifier is a parameter of the query”)
generating, by the transaction management service, a transaction event trigger, wherein the transaction event trigger is based on the transaction challenge record; (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-350 + abstract “where the customer identifier is a parameter of the query”)
transmitting a notification to a user device, wherein the notification includes the challenge identifier and is based on the transaction event trigger; (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-350 + abstract “where the customer identifier is a parameter of the query”)
receiving, from the user device, a validation communication, wherein the validation communication validates the received transaction and includes the challenge identifier; (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-350 + para 0033 + Figure 2 item 220)
generating, by the transaction management service, service options based on the customer context information, the service options including applying an amount of the received transaction to the number of accounts based on the balance of the number of accounts; (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-350 + abstract “where the customer identifier is a parameter of the query” + para 0033)
transmitting, by the transaction management service, the service options to the user device; and (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-360 + Figure 4 item 440)
persisting, by the transaction management service, a transaction decision from the user device made based on the service options to a transaction decision database; and (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-360 + Figure 4 item 440)
training, by the transaction management service, a machine learning model to detect fraud of a next received transaction based on the transaction decision of the transaction decision database. (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-360 + Figure 4 item 440)
While examiner believes, Rosner teaches the features of applicant, should the limitations be argued and for the sake of compact prosecution additional reference, Kend and Van additionally teaches the limitations of the applicant.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effect filling date was made to modify Rosner by adapting any features of Kend and Van.
It is clear that one would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to know methods to yield predictable results. Specifically both Rosner and Kend and Van all relate to same subject area of transaction management.
receiving, at a transaction management service, a received transaction, wherein the received transaction includes a payment product identifier associated with an initiating customer, the payment product identifier being a part of an application programming interface (API) defined for use with an access control service provided by a payment processing organization of the received transaction; (see Kend Figure 3 item 302 + figure 23 item 2302 + figure 22)
executing, by the transaction management service, a first query against a customer information database, wherein the first query includes the payment product identifier as a lookup key, and wherein the first query returns a party key and context data, wherein the party key uniquely identifies the customer associated with a payment product of the received transaction; (see Kend Figure 3 item 302-308 + figure 23 item 2302-2314 + figure 22)
executing, by the transaction management service, a second query against the customer information database, wherein the second query uses the party key as a lookup parameter and returns customer context information, the customer context information including a number of accounts associated with the initiating customer and the balance on the number of accounts; (see Kend Figure 3 item 302-308 + figure 23 item 2302-2314 + figure 22)
generating, by the transaction management service, a transaction challenge record, wherein the transaction challenge record includes the payment product identifier, the party key, and a challenge identifier, wherein the challenge identifier uniquely identifies a challenge based on the customer context information and the received transaction; (see Kend Figure 3 item 302-308 + figure 23 item 2302-2314 + figure 22)
generating, by the transaction management service, a transaction event trigger, wherein the transaction event trigger is based on the transaction challenge record; (see Kend Figure 3 item 302-308 + figure 23 item 2302-2314 + figure 22)
transmitting a notification to a user device, wherein the notification includes the challenge identifier and is based on the transaction event trigger; (see Kend Figure 3 item 302-308 + figure 23 item 2302-2314+ figure 22)
receiving, from the user device, a validation communication, wherein the validation communication validates the received transaction and includes the challenge identifier; (see Kend figure 12 item 1202-1210 + Figure 3 item 302-308 + figure 23 item 2302-2314 + figure 22)
generating, by the transaction management service, service options based on the customer context information, the service options including applying an amount of the received transaction to the number of accounts based on the balance of the number of accounts; (see Kend figure 12 item 1202-1210 + Figure 3 item 302-308 + figure 23 item 2302-2314 + figure 22)
transmitting, by the transaction management service, the service options to the user device; and (see Kend figure 12 item 1210-1214 + Figure 3 item 308-3012 + figure 23 item 2314-2318 + figure 22)
persisting, by the transaction management service, a transaction decision from the user device made based on the service options to a transaction decision database; and (see Kend figure 12 item 1210-1214 + Figure 3 item 308-3012 + figure 23 item 2314-2318 + figure 22)
training, by the transaction management service, a machine learning model to detect fraud of a next received transaction based on the transaction decision of the transaction decision database. (see Kend figure 12 item 1210-1214 + Figure 3 item 308-3012 + figure 23 item 2314-2318 + figure 22)
Van specifically teaches a payment system:
training, by the transaction management service, a machine learning model to detect fraud of a next received transaction based on the transaction decision of the transaction decision database. (see Van para 0199 + fig 7 item 716)
Re claim 3 & 13 & 18: see claim 1 +
comprising: persisting the transaction challenge record in a challenge transaction context database. (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-350 + abstract “where the customer identifier is a parameter of the query” + para 0033 + see Kend Figure 3 item 302-308 + figure 23 item 2302-2314 + figure 22)
Re claim 6: see claim 1 +
wherein the received transaction is processed by a fraud engine and wherein the fraud engine returns a fraud score to the transaction management service. (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-350 + abstract “where the customer identifier is a parameter of the query” + para 0033 + see Kend Figure 3 item 302-308 + figure 23 item 2302-2314 + figure 22 item 622)
Re claim 8: see claim 1 +
wherein the transaction challenge record and the transaction event trigger include a template ID. (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-350 + para 0033 + Figure 2 item 220 + see Kend Figure 3 item 302-308 + figure 23 item 2302-2314 + figure 22 item 622)
Re claim 9: see claim 1 +
wherein the transaction management service transmits the transaction event trigger to a communication manager. (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-350 + para 0033 + Figure 2 item 220 + see Kend Figure 3 item 302-308 + figure 23 item 2302-2314 + figure 22 item 622)
Re claim 10: see claim 1 +
wherein the communication manager formats the notification as specified by the template ID. (see Rosner Figure 3 item 315-350 + para 0033 + Figure 2 item 220 + see Kend Figure 3 item 302-308 + figure 23 item 2302-2314 + figure 22 item 622)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Answers to the arguments on the amended limitations which change the scope of the claims, will be addressed in the action above. Applicant's art arguments are considered moot due to new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argued prior art does not teach newly submitted claims of receiving, at a transaction management service, a received transaction, wherein the received transaction includes a payment product identifier associated with an initiating customer, the payment product identifier being a parameter of an internal application programming interface (API) only accessible within a private communication network and provided by a payment processing organization of the received transaction, the internal API being based on simple object access protocol (SOAP) or representational state transfer (REST);
The examiner refutes this argument and point to Rosner Figure 3 item 305 + para 0078.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hawkes, U.S. Patent Pub 2010/0179906, a security systems for on-line and off-line transactions. It is particularly suited to credit and debit transactions over the Internet or other on-line communications systems but is also suitable for off-line transactions.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693