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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Regarding rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant submits that the claims are not directed to any alleged “fundamental economic principles or practices” (see pgs. 9-10 of the Remarks filed 03/09/2026) and “Extraneous communications related to a transaction are not necessarily an economic practice.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are clearly directed to transactions actively being processed within a payment network by financial institutions (e.g. the acquirer computing device), the transactions comprising transaction amounts and categories. Furthermore, the transactions are associated with a particular payment account tied to a parent and child token (e.g. see 0014 of the specification). Accordingly, notification of transactions (e.g. to a parent) exceeding particular thresholds is a fundamental aspect of fraud detection and risk management within finance, thus falling under the “fundamental economic principles and practices” sub-grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant further submits that the threshold condition addresses technical problems such as slow traffic, unnecessary traffic, etc. by filtering authorization requests (see pg. 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s mere assertion that imposing a threshold condition for notification improves network traffic/congestion is insufficient evidence that both the specific technical limitation commonly existed at the time of filing and that the associated limitation solves or improves upon the technical problem. Furthermore, the claims do not recite any particular “programmatic filtering” besides mere data gathering and identification.
Applicant further submits that Example 40 and Finjan, Inc. are applicable to the instant claims and support the claims eligibility (see pg. 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The decisions in Example 40 and Finjan, Inc. are based on the specific limitations of their respective claims. The instant claims under examination are not directed to filtering network traffic to improve network monitoring nor specific steps for improving computer security. Rather, the instant claims merely recite limitations that improve upon the abstract idea of transaction notification and parent/child account management. The performance or functioning of the computing devices is not improved and neither is there a particular technical field being improved upon.
Applicant further submits that the claims are not mere automation (see pg. 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do no more than recite steps for identifying and analyzing (i.e. determining) data via a computing device. This amounts to no more than an attempt to implement and/or automate the abstract idea (transaction notification) using a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements and the claims as a whole do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1, 3, and 6-9 are directed to a method and claims 11-13 and 15-19 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage media. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites: A computer-implemented method for providing one or more notifications associated with a parent token based on one or more transactions involving a child token, the method comprising:
identifying, by a computing device of a payment network, transaction data from an authorization request, from an acquirer computing device, for a transaction to a single account as including a child token, the child token being a first identifier unique to a child user, the child token linked to the single account;
identifying, by the computing device, in a token data structure, a parent token linked to the single account based on the child token, the parent token being different than the child token, the parent token being a second identifier unique to a parent user;
determining the parent token is enrolled for notifications;
identifying a communication device associated with the parent token, the communication device specific to the parent user, from the token data structure, based on a device ID for the communication device being associated with the parent token;
determining a transaction amount in the transaction data, for the transaction, exceeds a transaction amount threshold; and
based on determining that the parent token is enrolled for notifications and determining the transaction amount exceeds the transaction amount threshold, transmitting, by the computing device, a notification, in real-time, relative to the authorization request, to the identified communication device consistent with the device ID, the notification indicative of the transaction and including at least a portion of the transaction data.
(Additional element(s) emphasized in bold)
The above claim describes a process for: identifying transaction data for a transaction, from an authorization account from an acquirer, associated with a single account including a child profile comprising a first identifier unique to the child user and linked to the single account; identifying a parent profile linked to the single account, the parent profile comprising a second identifier unique to the parent user; determining the parent profile is enrolled for notifications; identifying a communication address associated with the parent profile (e.g. mailing address, telephone number, email address, etc.) based on an ID associated with the parent profile; determining a transaction amount in the transaction data exceeds a transaction amount threshold; and based on determining the parent’s enrollment for notification and that the transaction amount exceeds the threshold, transmitting a notification to the parent indicative of the transaction and including at least a portion of the transaction data. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of parent/child transaction approval/authorization and transaction notification which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas under the “fundamental economic principles or practices” sub-grouping in prong one of step 2A. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04), the additional elements of the claim such as computing device, parent/child tokens, payment network, acquirer computing device, token data structures, and communication device merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The use of parent/child tokens, payment network, and token data structures does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g. parent/child account management in a payment network) due to reciting said elements at no more than a high level of generality (e.g. the tokens are merely digital substitutes for user identifiers/profiles and the token data structure is merely a generic data structure (e.g. a relational database) usable by any generic, off-the-shelf computing device). Furthermore, the use of processors/computers (computing device, acquirer computing device, communication device) as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea (i.e. “apply it”). Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and 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 because, when analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional elements of computing device, parent/child tokens, payment network, acquirer computing device, token data structures, and communication device do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the use of parent/child tokens, payment network, and token data structures does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g. parent/child account management in a payment network) due to reciting said elements at no more than a high level of generality (e.g. the tokens are merely digital substitutes for user identifiers/profiles and the token data structure is merely a generic data structure (e.g. a relational database) usable by any generic, off-the-shelf computing device). Furthermore, the use of computing devices and a communication device does no more than use processors/computers as tools to implement and/or automate the abstract idea (i.e. “apply it”). Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of parent/child transaction approval and notification via a computing device. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3 and 6-9 further describe characteristics of data (e.g. types of notification and transaction information) and further steps for transmitting the notification. Furthermore, the additional elements of email, SMS, voicemail, and web-based application messages continue to do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. As such, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
The same analysis pertaining to the abstract idea of parent/child transaction approval/authorization and notification holds true for claims 11-13 and 15-19 as well, with the additional elements of memory and processor merely using a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 11-13 and 15-19 are also not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11-13, and 15-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11-13, and 15-19 recite allowable subject matter over the prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose, neither singly nor in combination, in a reasonable number of references, for claims 1 and 11: identifying, by a computing device, transaction data for a transaction to a single account as including a child token, the child token being a first identifier unique to a child user, the child token linked to the single account; and identifying, by the computing device, in a token data structure, a parent token linked to the single account based on the child token, the parent token being different than the child token, the parent token being a second identifier unique to a parent user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR RAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:00 EST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571)-272-6708. 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.
/T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights