DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 18, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on March 18, 2026 has been entered. Applicant has: amended claims 1, 2, 5, 8-11, 15, 20, and 21; canceled claim 14; and added claim 22. Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-22 are now pending, have been examined, and currently stand rejected.
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 . 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the spending history data” as in “analyze trends in the spending history data.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 1 (and independent claims 11 and 20) recites “retrieve, based on the user profile, spending history associated with the user profile.” As best understood, the “spending history” and the “spending history data” are both referring to the same information/data. (Note that the “retrieving spending history” limitation, now recited in claims 1, 11 and 20, was initially recited in claim 9 as “retrieving spending history data”). Examiner recommends amending the claim(s) to use the same terminology throughout (e.g., change all recitations of “spending history” to “spending history data”).
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 1-6, 8-13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03. Here, it is determined that claims 1-6, 8-10 and 21 are directed to the statutory category of a machine, claims 11-13 and 15-19 are directed to the statutory category of a process, and claims 20 and 22 are directed to the statutory category of a manufacture. Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 11, the method claim, is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 11 recites:
A method for generating a virtual card number (VCN), the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, by a banking application associated with a server, one or more user identification data;
matching, by the banking application, the one or more user identification data to a user profile;
transmitting, by the banking application to a user device application, an authentication request;
receiving, by the banking application from the user device application, an authentication credential;
retrieving, by the banking application, one or more primary account numbers (PANs) associated with the user profile;
transmitting, by the banking application to the user device application, a prompt to choose one or more of the PANs with which to complete a transaction;
receiving, by the banking application from the user device application, a choice of one or more PANs;
generating, by the banking application, a virtual card number (VCN) associated with the chosen one or more PANs;
retrieving, by the banking application based on the user profile, spending history associated with the user profile;
creating, based on the spending history, one or more merchant categories;
applying a predictive model to the spending history to determine one or more restrictions on the VCN based on the one or more merchant categories; and
transmitting, by the banking application to a merchant processor, the VCN.
Here, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of generating and providing payment data that has use restrictions (i.e., a VCN comprising restrictions) based on receiving user information (e.g., authentication credentials, a selection of an account, a spending history, etc.). This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a fundamental economic practice (e.g., acquiring user information, account number generating, exchanging financial information, restricting account usage, etc.) and/or a commercial or legal interaction (e.g., account verification, exchanging of account information, creation of transaction/payment data, etc.). The tying of this concept to a particular environment (e.g., an environment that uses a banking application and/or a virtual card number) fails to move the claims beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea in a particular environment. Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F .3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. Here, it is clear that the claim(s) focus on an abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical field. It is further noted that, the performance of the one or more process steps using a generic computer component (e.g., a banking application, a server, a processor, etc.) does not preclude the claim limitation(s) from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Here, claim 11 recites the additional elements of: a banking application associated with a server. Independent claim 1 recites the additional elements of: a server comprising a processor and a banking application. Independent claim 20 recites the additional elements of: a computer hardware arrangement comprising a processor. The computer hardware arrangement comprising a processor, server, processor, and banking application are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component, software, and/or system. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner finds no indication that the computer component(s) itself/themselves is/are improved, or that there is an improvement to some other technology. Examiner finds no indication in the Specification (See e.g., Specification [0044]; [0085]), that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible."). They do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. They do not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely linking it to a particular technological environment. Therefore, 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. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed (i.e., provide an inventive concept). MPEP §2106.05. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of using various computing components (e.g., a processor, a server, an application, etc.) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. That is, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Accordingly, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-4, 6, and 12 further refine the abstract idea by describing characteristics about the VCN (e.g., how/where/when the VCN can be used). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claim 5 further refines the abstract idea by describing the storing of the generated VCN. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims 8-10 further refine the abstract idea by retrieving additional information associated with the user and then analyzing the retrieved information. The analyzing of the retrieved information is recited at a high level of generality, accordingly there is no indication of an inventive concept based on the manner the information is analyzed. Accordingly, these limitations fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims 8-10 also recite the additional element of generating a predictive model. Examiner considers this element to be insignificant extra-solution activity that is only tangentially related to the claimed invention. MPEP 2106.05(g). When considered under step 2B, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. Additionally, the generating of the model is described at a high level of generality and Applicant’s disclosure suggests that this step is well-known in the art since applicant’s disclosure provides no specific details (e.g., steps, diagrams, flowcharts, etc.) describing how these particular models are generated. Furthermore, the prior art (e.g., Eidson et al. (US 10,956,879 B1) and Zhang et al. (US 10,445,152 B1)) also demonstrates that generating a predictive model was a process well-known in the art. See e.g., Eidson Col. 1 lines 34-63; Col. 33 lines 17-45; Zhang Col. 2 lines 11-17.
Dependent claim 13 further refines the abstract idea by describing characteristics of the restriction. Examiner notes that applicant is not positively reciting a step of dynamically changing the restriction (e.g., wherein the method further comprises changing the predetermined restriction […].), rather the claim is merely describing why/how/when the restriction might be changed. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 further refines the abstract idea by describing what type of information the VCN is associated with (e.g., bound to a chosen PAN). This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 further refines the abstract idea by describing the manner the VCN is transmitted. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 further refines the abstract idea by describing the changing of VCN restrictions based on received information. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 refines the abstract idea by describing the type of authentication credentials that are received from the user. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 refines the abstract idea by describing the how the authentication credentials are transmitted. Examiner also notes that applicant is not positively reciting a step where the credentials are transmitted. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 21 refines the abstract idea by describing the type of information that is collected in order to add a usage restriction. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 22 refines the abstract idea by describing characteristics about the VCN (e.g., where the VCN can be used). This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava (US 2014/0019352 A1) in view of Babcock et al. (US 2022/0147648 A1) (“Babcock”) in view of Han (US 2009/0292642 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 20: Shrivastava discloses:
Claim 1: A system for generating a virtual card number (VCN), the system comprising:
a server comprising a processor and a banking application, which, when the banking application is executed by the processor, the banking application causes the processor to (See at least Shrivastava [0511-0517]; [0549-0550]; Fig. 72 Items 7201, 7203 and 7235. Shrivastava discloses a server (i.e., Wallet In Proxy (WIP) Controller) comprising a processor (i.e., CPU) and a banking application (i.e., WIP component).):
Claim 11: A method for generating a virtual card number (VCN), the method comprising the steps of:
Claim 20: A computer readable non-transitory medium comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by a computer hardware arrangement comprising a processor, causes the computer hardware arrangement to perform procedures comprising (See at least Shrivastava [0511-0515]; [0549-0550]; Fig. 72):
receiving, by a banking application associated with a server, one or more user identification data (See at least Shrivastava [0140]; [0472]; [0474]; Fig. 67 Step 6715; Fig. 68 Step 6807; also see [0357]. Shrivastava discloses receiving, by a banking application (i.e., by a WIP component) associated with a server (i.e., associated with a WIP Controller), one or more user identification data (e.g., user identifier).);
matching, by the banking application, the one or more user identification data to a user profile (See at least Shrivastava [0140]; [0472-0474]; Fig. 67 Step 6720; Fig. 68 Step 6813; also see [0357-0361]. Shrivastava discloses matching, by the banking application (i.e., WIP component), the one or more user identification data (e.g., user identifier) to a user profile (i.e., user profile).);
transmitting, by the banking application to a user device application, an authentication request (See at least Shrivastava [0148]; [0362]; Fig. 48C Steps 4833 and 4834. Shrivastava discloses transmitting, by the banking application (i.e., WIP component) to a user device application (i.e., to a user client), an authentication request.);
receiving, by the banking application from the user device application, an authentication credential (See at least Shrivastava [0148]; [0154-0156]; [0363]; [0413-0414]; Fig. 35 Step 3510; Fig. 48C Steps 4835 and 4836. Shrivastava discloses receiving, by the banking application (i.e., WIP component) from the user device application (i.e., from the user client), an authentication credential.);
retrieving, by the banking application, one or more primary account numbers (PANs) associated with the user profile (See at least Shrivastava [0455]; [0479-0480]; Fig. 69 Steps 6919 and 6920. Shrivastava discloses retrieving (i.e., obtaining), by the banking application, one or more primary account numbers (PANs) (i.e., payment options, e.g., account numbers) associated with the user profile.);
transmitting, by the banking application to the user device application, a prompt to choose one or more of the PANs with which to complete a transaction (See at least Shrivastava [0455]; [0480]; [0485]; Fig. 69 Step 6922. Shrivastava discloses transmitting, by the banking application to the user device application (i.e., to the user client), a prompt (i.e., a request message/card selection request) to choose one or more of the PANs (i.e., select a payment option) with which to complete a transaction.);
receiving, by the banking application from the user device application, a choice of one or more PANs (See at least Shrivastava [0482]; [0486]; Fig. 69 Step 6925. Shrivastava discloses receiving, from the user device application (i.e., from user client), a choice of one or more PANs (i.e., a selection of a card from the user's virtual wallet).);
generating, by the banking application, a virtual card number (VCN) associated with the chosen one or more PANs (See at least Shrivastava [0466-0467]; [0471]; [0473]; [0488]; [0507]. Shrivastava discloses generating, by the banking application (i.e., WIP component), a virtual card number (VCN) (i.e., virtual/proxy credit card number) associated with the chosen one or more PANs (i.e., associated with the actual credit card number).); retrieve, based on the user profile, spending history associated with the user profile (See at least Shrivastava [0118]; [0196]; [0222]; [0337]; Fig. 15A. Shrivastava discloses retrieving, based on the user profile, spending history (i.e., a history of prior purchases) associated with the user profile (i.e., associated with the user).);
create, based on the spending history, one or more merchant categories (See at least Shrivastava [0221-0222]; Fig. 15A. Shrivastava discloses creating, based on the spending history, one or more merchant categories (i.e., one or more query results/groupings associated with a particular search query/filter, where the merchants returned in a first query result/grouping are in a first created merchant category, merchants returned in a second query result/grouping are in a second merchant category, etc. Note that Examiner is interpreting a category to be created when data (e.g., a spending history, history of prior purchases) is organized into a result/grouping.); determine one or more restrictions on the VCN based on one or more merchant categories (See at least Shrivastava [0118-0121]; [0168]; [0175]; [0215] “a transaction with a grocery merchant having MCC 5411 may be approved, while a transaction with a bar merchant having an MCC 5813 may be refused”; Fig. 4E; Shrivastava Claim 6. Shrivastava discloses determine one or more restrictions (i.e., leash parameters) on the VCN (i.e., virtual/proxy credit card number) based on one or more merchant categories (e.g., based on merchants being on a blacklist or a whitelist, where leash parameters limit usage of the card to merchants on a whitelist and/or not allowing card usage for merchants on a blacklist).).
Shrivastava discloses organizing one or merchants into a result/grouping (i.e., a category). Shrivastava [0221-0222]; Fig. 15A. Shrivastava also discloses that the virtual/proxy credit card number (i.e., VCN) can be restricted, via leash parameters, to one or more merchant categories and/or merchants. Shrivastava [0118-0121]; [0168]; [0175]; [0215]; Fig. 4E; Shrivastava Claim 6. Shrivastava differs from the claimed invention, in part, because Shrivastava does not explicitly disclose applying a predictive model to the spending history to determine the one or more restrictions.
Babcock, on the other hand, teaches applying a predictive model to the spending history to determine one or more restrictions on the VCN based on the one or more merchant categories (See at least Babcock [0084]; [0132] “merchant identity information 602 can be indicated at any suitable level of granularity (e.g., category, type, and/or class of merchant that is facilitating the transaction” ; [0176]; [0279]; [0332]. Babcock teaches applying a predictive model (i.e., a machine learning model) to the spending history (i.e., to a transaction/purchase history of the user) to determine one or more restrictions (i.e., update/change the content of transaction restrictions, e.g., merchant identity restrictions) on the VCN (i.e., on the QR code) based on the one or more merchant categories (i.e., based on the merchant identity information).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shrivastava’s method, which restricts a virtual/proxy credit card number (i.e., VCN) to one or more merchant categories and/or merchants, to include applying a predictive model to the spending history to determine one or more restrictions on the VCN based on the one or more merchant categories, as taught/suggested by Babcock. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to include such a feature in order to enhance the safety, security, and/or privacy of the transaction (Babcock [0084]). Additionally, the use of the machine learning model allows the users transaction restrictions to be updated automatically based on specific user usage/behavior (Babcock [0332]).
Shrivastava discloses where the VCN (i.e., virtual/proxy credit card number) is transmitted/provided to a merchant processor. Shrivastava [0466-0467]; [0488]. However, Shrivastava differs, in part, from the claimed invention because Shrivastava does not explicitly disclose where the VCN is transmitted, by the banking application [of the server], to the merchant processor.
Han, on the other hand, teaches transmitting, by the banking application, the VCN to a merchant processor (See at least Han [0030]; [0046]. Han teaches transmitting, by the banking application (i.e., by the software on the Central Service Provider), the VCN (i.e., virtual/online payment card) to a merchant processor (i.e., merchant system).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shrivastava’s method of generating a virtual/proxy credit card number that is provided to a merchant, to include the teachings of Han, in order to increase security by directly providing the virtual/online payment card to the merchant (Han [0046]).
Regarding Claim 3: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the system of claim 1. Shrivastava further discloses wherein the VCN is configured to expire after a predetermined time period (See at least Shrivastava [0116]; [0160-0161]; [0487]; [0491-0492]. Shrivastava discloses wherein the VCN (i.e., virtual/proxy credit card number) is configured to expire (i.e., disable) after a predetermined time period (e.g., after each transaction, every month, every day, etc.).).
Regarding Claim 4: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the system of claim 1. Shrivastava further discloses wherein the VCN is limited to a predetermined spending limit (See at least Shrivastava [0097-0098]; [0117-0118]; [0121]; [0131]; [0134]; Fig. 4 C items 422a-422c. Shrivastava discloses wherein the VCN (i.e., virtual/proxy credit card number) is limited to a predetermined spending limit (i.e., a maximum amount cap).).
Regarding Claim 5: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the system of claim 1. Shrivastava further discloses where in the banking application further causes the processor to store, upon generating the VCN, the VCN in a data storage unit for later use (See at least Shrivastava [0142]; [0473-0474]; [0479]; [0485]; [0488]. Shrivastava discloses where in the banking application further causes the processor store, upon generating the VCN (i.e., upon generating the virtual/proxy credit card number), the VCN in a data storage unit (e.g., in the users wallet, in the database) for later use.).
Regarding Claim 12: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the method of claim 11. Shrivastava further discloses wherein the VCN is restricted to at least one of a predetermined time period, merchant, geographic location, or price (See at least Shrivastava [0097-0098]; [0115-0121]; [0131]; [0134]; [0146]; [0159-0164]; [0487]; [0491-0492]; Fig. 4 C items 422a-422c. Shrivastava discloses wherein the VCN (i.e., virtual/proxy credit card number) is restricted to at least one of a predetermined time period (e.g., restricted to one transaction, restricted to a month, restricted to a day, etc.), merchant (e.g., via leash parameters that limit usage of the card via a list of merchants), geographic location (i.e., transaction location/geo-location), or price (e.g., a maximum amount cap).).
Regarding Claim 15: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the method of claim 11. Shrivastava further discloses wherein the VCN is bound to the chosen one or more PANs (See at least Shrivastava [0466-0468]; [0486-0488]; [0507]. Shrivastava discloses wherein the VCN (i.e., the virtual/proxy credit card number) is bound to the chosen one or more PANs (i.e., bound to the actual credit card/user identifiable PAN).).
Regarding Claim 16: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the method of claim 15. Shrivastava does not explicitly disclose wherein the VCN is transmitted from the server to the merchant processor without notification to the user of the VCN' s existence.
However, Han further discloses wherein the VCN is transmitted from the server to the merchant processor without notification to the user of the VCN' s existence (See at least Han [0030]; [0046]. Han discloses wherein the VCN (i.e., virtual/online payment card) is transmitted from the server (i.e., from the Central Service Provider) to the merchant processor (i.e., merchant system) without notification to the user of the VCN' s existence (note the virtual/online payment card is sent directly to the merchant, however the customer does not receive any notifications/messages/etc. about the card).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shrivastava’s method of generating a virtual/proxy credit card number that is provided to a merchant, to include the teachings of Han, in order to increase security by directly providing the virtual/online payment card to the merchant (Han [0046]).
Regarding Claim 18: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the method of claim 11. Shrivastava further discloses wherein the authentication credential comprises a short message service (SMS) one time passcode (OTP), a password, biometric, or unique customer identifier (See at least Shrivastava [0148]; [0154-0156]; [0363]; [0413-0414]. Shrivastava discloses wherein the authentication credential comprises a short message service (SMS) one time passcode (OTP) (i.e., text requesting a PIN/challenge response), a password, biometric, or unique customer identifier (i.e., WIP ID).).
Regarding Claim 19: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the method of claim 18. Shrivastava further discloses wherein the authentication credential is transmitted over a communication field comprising near field communication (NFC), radio frequency identification (RFID), or Bluetooth (See at least Shrivastava [0421-0422]; Fig. 62A; also see [0190]; [0318]; [0345]; [0415].).
Regarding Claim 21: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the system of claim 1. Shrivastava further discloses wherein creating the one or more merchant categories includes receiving an updated spending history associated with the user profile, and creating updated one or more merchant categories based on the updated spending history (See at least Shrivastava [0221-0222]; Fig. 15A. Shrivastava discloses wherein creating the one or more merchant categories (i.e., query results/groupings associated with a particular search query/filter) includes receiving an updated spending history (i.e., history of prior purchases, it is implied that this history would be updated as the user makes additional purchases) associated with the user profile, and creating updated one or more merchant categories (i.e., a new/updated query results/groupings associated with a particular search query/filter) based on the updated spending history.).
Regarding Claim 22: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the computer readable non-transitory medium of claim 20. Shrivastava further discloses wherein the VCN is restricted to a geographic location comprising an area around a storefront (See at least Shrivastava [0108]; [0115]; [0146]; [0159]; [0272]; [0411]. Shrivastava discloses wherein the VCN (i.e., virtual/proxy credit card number) is restricted to a geographic location (i.e., transaction location/geo-location) comprising an area around a storefront (e.g., a geographical area comprising the store, an appropriate spot on the map, etc.).).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava in view of Babcock in view of Han, as applied above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0405753 A1) (“Lee”)
Regarding Claim 2: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the system of claim 1. Shrivastava further discloses wherein generating the VCN comprises restricting the VCN to a plurality of merchant categories (See at least Shrivastava [0118-0121]; [0168]; [0175]; [0215]; Fig. 4E; Shrivastava Claim 6. Shrivastava discloses wherein generating the VCN (i.e., virtual/proxy credit card number) comprises restricting the VNC to a plurality of merchant categories (e.g., via leash parameters that limit usage of the card to merchants on a whitelist and not allowing card usage for merchants on a blacklist).).
Shrivastava discloses that the virtual/proxy credit card number (i.e., VCN) can be restricted, via leash parameters, to one or more merchant categories and/or merchants. Shrivastava [0118-0121]; [0168]; [0175]; [0215]; Fig. 4E; Shrivastava Claim 6. Shrivastava differs from the claimed invention, in part, because Shrivastava does not explicitly disclose that the merchant categories to which the VCN is restricted are of the created one or more merchant categories.
Lee, on the other hand, teaches restricting a card number to a plurality of merchant categories of the created one or more merchant categories (See at least Lee [0021]; [0035-0037]; [0048]; [0077-0078]. Lee teaches restricting a card number (i.e., credit card account) to a plurality of merchant categories (i.e., customized categories) of the created one or more merchant categories (i.e., of the customized categories, e.g., 50 or less customized categories).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shrivastava’s method, which restricts a virtual/proxy credit card number (i.e., VCN) to one or more merchant categories and/or merchants, to include restricting the VCN to a plurality of merchant categories of the created one or more merchant categories, as taught/suggested by Lee. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to include such a feature in order to add customized transaction rules that limit how cards issued under an organization may be used (Lee [0005]).
Regarding Claim 6: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the system of claim 1. Shrivastava further discloses wherein the VCN is restricted to a plurality of merchants (See at least Shrivastava [0118-0121]; [0168]; [0175]; [0215]; Fig. 4E; Shrivastava Claim 6. Shrivastava discloses wherein the VCN (i.e., virtual/proxy credit card number) is restricted to a plurality of merchants (e.g., via leash parameters that limit usage of the card via a list of merchants).). Shrivastava discloses that the virtual/proxy credit card number (i.e., VCN) can be restricted, via leash parameters, to one or more merchant categories and/or merchants. Shrivastava [0118-0121]; [0168]; [0175]; [0215]; Fig. 4E; Shrivastava Claim 6. Shrivastava differs from the claimed invention, in part, because Shrivastava does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of merchants to which the VCN is restricted are in each of the at least one merchant category.
Lee, on the other hand, teaches restricting a card number to a plurality of merchants in each of the at least one merchant category (See at least Lee [0021]; [0035-0037]; [0048]; [0077-0078]. Lee teaches restricting a card number (i.e., credit card account) to a plurality of merchants (i.e., specific merchants, e.g., pre-authorized or prohibited merchants) in each of the at least one merchant category (i.e., in each of the customized categories, e.g., pre-authorized or prohibited merchant categories).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shrivastava’s method, which restricts a virtual/proxy credit card number (i.e., VCN) to one or more merchant categories and/or merchants, to include wherein the VCN is restricted to a plurality of merchants in each of the at least one merchant category, as taught/suggested by Lee. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to include such a feature in order to add customized transaction rules that limit how cards issued under an organization may be used (Lee [0005]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava in view of Babcock in view of Han, as applied above, and further in view of Eidson et al. (US 10,956,879 B1) (“Eidson”).
Regarding Claim 8: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the system of claim 1. Shrivastava further discloses wherein the banking application further causes the processor to retrieve, from a database, user location data associated with the user profile (See at least Shrivastava [0166]; [0273]; [0337]; [0473].).
Shrivastava further discloses the use of restrictions/parameters that can be analyzed to reduce the risk of fraud. Shrivastava [0108]; [0166]. Shrivastava indicates that some of these restrictions could be based on geo-location. Shrivastava [0166-0167]. However, Shrivastava fails to explicitly disclose: analyz[ing] trends in the user location data; or generat[ing] a predictive model configured to determine a restriction on the VCN, wherein the predictive model comprises a model of one or more future spending habits associated with the user profile anticipated by a predetermined algorithm. Eidson, on the other hand, teaches retrieving/aggregating and analyzing historical data (e.g., transaction data, user location data, locations where transactions took place) associated with a user to identify recurring events (i.e., trends). Eidson Col. 1 lines 34-63; Col. 11 lines 14-20; Col. 30 lines 32-60; Col. 33 lines 17-45; Col. 37 lines 14-28; Eidson Claim 1. Eidson indicates that, based on the analyzing, a model can be generated, where the model can be used to predict future/discretionary spending habits of the user. Eidson Col. 1 lines 34-63; Col. 33 lines 17-45. Eidson indicates that the model can determine and provide proactive advice (i.e., a restriction, e.g., advice to restrict spending) in order to help a user meet certain goals. Eidson Col. 33 line 46 - Col. 36 line 2. Accordingly, Eidson teaches that it was known in the art to generate a model that can be used to predict future spending habits of a user. Eidson further teaches that it was known in the art to determine certain advice/restrictions that could be applied to user accounts and/or behavior. In view of the teachings/suggestions provided by Eidson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shrivastava’s method of analyzing transaction data to reduce the likelihood of fraud to include analyz[ing] trends in the user location data; and generat[ing] a predictive model configured to determine a restriction on the VCN, wherein the predictive model comprises a model of one or more future spending habits associated with the user profile anticipated by a predetermined algorithm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include these features in order to allow the user to monitor certain behaviors, and to receive proactive guidance or advice that may allow the user to more successfully modify their behavior (Eidson Col. 31 lines 4-7).
Regarding Claim 9: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the system of claim 1. As indicated above, Shrivastava discloses retrieving, based on the user profile, spending history (i.e., a history of prior purchases) associated with the user profile (i.e., associated with the user). Shrivastava [0118]; [0196]; [0222]; [0337]; Fig. 15A. Shrivastava further discloses that restrictions/parameters for an account/card could be recommended to a user based on the user’s transaction patterns. Shrivastava [0118]. However, Shrivastava fails to explicitly disclose: analyz[ing] trends in the spending history data; or generat[ing] the predictive model, wherein the predictive model comprises a model of one or more future spending habits associated with the user profile anticipated by a predetermined algorithm.
Eidson, on the other hand, teaches retrieving/aggregating and analyzing historical data (e.g., transaction data, user location data, locations where transactions took place) associated with a user to identify recurring events (i.e., trends). Eidson Col. 1 lines 34-63; Col. 11 lines 14-20; Col. 30 lines 32-60; Col. 33 lines 17-45; Col. 37 lines 14-28; Eidson Claim 1. Eidson indicates that, based on the analyzing, a model can be generated, where the model can be used to predict future/discretionary spending habits of the user. Eidson Col. 1 lines 34-63; Col. 33 lines 17-45. Eidson indicates that the model can determine and provide proactive advice (i.e., a restriction, e.g., advice to restrict spending) in order to help a user meet certain goals. Eidson Col. 33 line 46 - Col. 36 line 2. Accordingly, Eidson teaches that it was known in the art to generate a model that can be used to predict future spending habits of a user. Eidson further teaches that it was known in the art to determine certain advice/restrictions that could be applied to user accounts and/or behavior. In view of the teachings/suggestions provided by Eidson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shrivastava’s method of recommending account/card restrictions/parameters based on the user’s transaction patterns to include analyz[ing] trends in the spending history data; and generat[ing] the predictive model, wherein the predictive model comprises a model of one or more future spending habits associated with the user profile anticipated by a predetermined algorithm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include these features in order to allow the user to monitor certain behaviors, and to receive proactive guidance or advice that may allow the user to more successfully modify their behavior (Eidson Col. 31 lines 4-7).
Regarding Claim 10: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the system of claim 1. Shrivastava further discloses wherein the banking application further causes the processor to retrieve, from a database, history data associated with the user profile (See at least Shrivastava [0118]; [0196]; [0337].).
Shrivastava further discloses that restrictions/parameters for an account/card could be recommended to a user based on the user’s transaction patterns. Shrivastava [0118]. However, Shrivastava fails to explicitly disclose: retriev[ing] user fraud history data associated with the user profile; analyz[ing] trends in the user fraud history data; or generat[ing] the predictive model configured to determine a restriction on the VCN wherein the predictive model comprises a model of one or more future spending habits associated with the user profile anticipated by a predetermined algorithm.
Eidson, on the other hand, teaches retrieving/aggregating and analyzing historical data (e.g., transaction data, user location data, locations where transactions took place) associated with a user to identify recurring events (i.e., trends). Eidson Col. 1 lines 34-63; Col. 11 lines 14-20; Col. 30 lines 32-60; Col. 33 lines 17-45; Col. 37 lines 14-28; Eidson Claim 1. Eidson indicates that, based on the analyzing, a model can be generated, where the model can be used to predict future/discretionary spending habits of the user. Eidson Col. 1 lines 34-63; Col. 33 lines 17-45. Eidson indicates that the model can determine and provide proactive advice (i.e., a restriction, e.g., advice to restrict spending) in order to help a user meet certain goals. Eidson Col. 33 line 46 - Col. 36 line 2. Accordingly, Eidson teaches that it was known in the art to generate a model that can be used to predict future spending habits of a user. Eidson further teaches that it was known in the art to determine certain advice/restrictions that could be applied to user accounts and/or behavior. In view of the teachings/suggestions provided by Eidson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shrivastava’s method of recommending account/card restrictions/parameters based on the user’s transaction patterns to include retriev[ing] user fraud history data associated with the user profile; analyz[ing] trends in the user fraud history data; and generat[ing] the predictive model configured to determine a restriction on the VCN wherein the predictive model comprises a model of one or more future spending habits associated with the user profile anticipated by a predetermined algorithm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include these features in order to allow the user to monitor certain behaviors, and to receive proactive guidance or advice that may allow the user to more successfully modify their behavior (Eidson Col. 31 lines 4-7).
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava in view of Babcock in view of Han, as applied above, and further in view of Rule et al. (US 2022/0027889 A1) (“Rule”).
Regarding Claim 13: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the method of claim 12. Shrivastava further discloses where the WIP component (i.e., banking application) recommends leash parameters (i.e., restrictions) based on the consumer’s transaction patterns. Shrivastava [0118]. Shrivastava also discloses automatically changing leash parameters (i.e., restrictions) based on information associated with the user (e.g., the user’s calendar records). Shrivastava [0102]; [0105]; [0110]; [0158]; [0160-0161]. However, Shrivastava does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined restriction is dynamically changed by the banking application in response to one or more spending habits associated with the user profile.
Rule, on the other hand, teaches that it was known in the art to change and/or suggest restrictions in response to data related to the user. Rule [0067-0070]. In view of the teachings/suggestions provided by Rule, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shrivastava’s method of recommending and changing leash parameters (i.e., restrictions) on a user’s account to include wherein the predetermined restriction is dynamically changed by the banking application in response to one or more spending habits associated with the user profile. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include these features in order to set restrictions that are personalized for the recipient of the virtual card number (Rule [0016]).
Regarding Claim 17: The combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han discloses the method of claim 11. Shrivastava further discloses wherein the method further comprises the steps of: receiving, by the server, a fraud detection associated with the VCN (See at least Shrivastava [0361-0362]. Shrivastava discloses receiving, by the server, a fraud detection (i.e., probability of an attempt at a fraudulent transaction) associated with the VCN .). Shrivastava discloses that additional verification may be needed based on detecting the possibility of fraud. Shrivastava [0361-0362]. Shrivastava further discloses where the WIP component (i.e., banking application) recommends leash parameters (i.e., restrictions) based on the consumer’s transaction patterns. Shrivastava [0118]. Shrivastava also discloses automatically changing leash parameters (i.e., restrictions) based on information associated with the user (e.g., the user’s calendar records). Shrivastava [0102]; [0105]; [0110]; [0158]; [0160-0161]. However, Shrivastava does not explicitly disclose changing, by the server in response to the fraud detection, one or more restrictions associated with the VCN. Rule, on the other hand, teaches that it was known in the art to change and/or suggest restrictions associated with a VCN in response to data related to the user. Rule [0067-0070]. In view of the teachings/suggestions provided by Rule, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shrivastava’s method of recommending and changing leash parameters (i.e., restrictions) on a user’s account to include changing, by the server in response to the fraud detection, one or more restrictions associated with the VCN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include these features in order to set restrictions that are personalized for the recipient of the virtual card number (Rule [0016]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 were objected to for a typographical error. Applicant’s amendments have corrected the previously identified issues, accordingly the prior objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Claims 1-6, 8-19 and 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Applicant’s amendments have corrected the previously identified issues, accordingly the prior 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Amendment, pp. 12-14. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner contends that the claims recite the abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of generating and providing payment data that has use restrictions (i.e., a VCN comprising restrictions) based on receiving user information (e.g., authentication credentials, a selection of an account, a spending history, etc.). This concept/abstract idea falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a fundamental economic practice (e.g., acquiring user information, account number generating, exchanging financial information, restricting account usage, etc.) and/or a commercial or legal interaction (e.g., account verification, exchanging of account information, creation of transaction/payment data, etc.).
Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, includes subject matter that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Amendment, pp. 15-16. In particular, applicant points to the limitations which recite "generating, by the banking application, a virtual card number (VCN) associated with the chosen one or more PANs," "retrieving, by the banking application based on the user profile, spending history associated with the user profile," "creating, based on the spending history, one or more merchant categories," and "applying a predictive model to the spending history to determine one or more restrictions on the VCN based on the one or more merchant categories." Amendment, p. 16. This argument is unpersuasive. Examiner notes that the elements/limitations identified in applicant’s remarks are not additional elements because they are describing limitations that pertain to generating payment data (i.e., a VCN) and generating/determining use restrictions for the payment data (e.g., use restrictions based on generated merchant categories). Since these elements are part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner also notes that the limitations identified in applicant’s remarks are recited at a high level of generality, accordingly there is no indication in the claim that there is an improvement in the functioning of a computer (e.g., the server), or an improvement to other technology or technical field (e.g., creating virtual card numbers, creating categories, applying predictive modeling, and/or restricting a VCN to a particular category).
Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides clear improvements to at least VCN generation and payment processing technologies. Amendment, pp. 16-19. This argument would be persuasive, however the claimed invention is missing a few key elements related to these arguments. First, the specification indicates that sending the VCN directly to the merchant for processing, rather than through the customer, can provide several additional advantages (Specification [0025]), however the claimed invention fails to indicate that the VCN is sent directly to the merchant. Second, the specification indicates a need to eliminate the risk of the customer accidentally or intentionally sharing the VCN with unauthorized parties (Specification [0001]; [0024-0025), however the claimed invention fails to indicate that the VCN is not shared with anyone other than the merchant (e.g., the user, the user device, etc.). Dependent claim 16 comes close to this feature by indicating that the VCN is transmitted to the merchant without notification to the user, but the claim stops short of reciting that the VCN is not transmitted to the user or anyone else. Third, the specification describes benefits of restricting the VCN based on merchant categories (see e.g., Specification [0026-0027]), however the independent claims do not restrict the VCN based on merchant categories. While the independent claims create merchant categories and apply a model [for the intended result of determining one or more restrictions], the independent claims do not actually apply and/or enforce any restrictions on the VCN. Dependent claim 2, and to a lesser extent dependent claim 6, touch on the restricting of the VCN, however these claims do not tie in the restrictions determined by the predictive model. In order to address this third issue, Examiner suggests amending the “applying” step to recite “determining, by applying a predictive model to the spending history, one or more restrictions on the VCN based on the one or more merchant categories, wherein generating the VCN comprises restricting the VCN based on the one or more restrictions.”
Applicant argues that “Even if, arguendo, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea under the analysis of Step 2A, which Applicant contends that it does not, the claim include "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea and, therefore, would satisfy Step 2B of the Alice framework.” Amendment, pp. 19-20. In particular, applicant indicates that the features of claim 11 includes specific processes performed by the banking application associated with the server to generate a VCN, creating one or more merchant categories, and apply a predictive model to the spending history to determine one or more restrictions on the VCN. Amendment, p. 19. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the remarks above, the steps of generating a VCN, creating one or more merchant categories, and applying a predictive model to the spending history to determine one or more restrictions on the VCN falls within the abstract idea of generating and providing payment data that has use restrictions (i.e., a VCN comprising restrictions) based on receiving user information (e.g., authentication credentials, a selection of an account, a spending history, etc.). Since these limitations/elements fall within the confines of the abstract idea, they cannot provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Examiner further notes that the independent claims are not positively reciting a step of determining one or more restrictions, rather the positively recited step is applying a model with an intended result of determining restrictions. Furthermore, the claimed invention fails to utilize any restrictions generated by model. While an improvement to technology can be an indication of eligible subject matter, that improvement must be recited in the claim.
For the above reasons, and for those set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection above, all of the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103 Applicant argues that Shrivastava, Lee, and Han do not teach or suggest "retrieving, by the banking application based on the user profile, spending history associated with the user profile," creating, based on the spending history, one or more merchant categories," and "applying a predictive model to the spending history to determine one or more restrictions on the VCN based on the one or more merchant categories." Amendment, p. 21. Examiner agrees in part. Examiner contends that Shrivastava discloses retrieving, based on the user profile, spending history (i.e., a history of prior purchases) associated with the user profile (i.e., associated with the user). Shrivastava [0118]; [0196]; [0222]; [0337]; Fig. 15A. Shrivastava discloses creating, based on the spending history, one or more merchant categories (i.e., one or more query results/groupings associated with a particular search query/filter, where the merchants returned in a first query result/grouping are in a first created merchant category, merchants returned in a second query result/grouping are in a second merchant category, etc. Note that Examiner is interpreting a category to be created when data (e.g., a spending history, history of prior purchases) is organized into a result/grouping. Shrivastava [0221-0222]; Fig. 15A. Shrivastava additionally discloses determining one or more restrictions (i.e., leash parameters) on the VCN (i.e., virtual/proxy credit card number) based on one or more merchant categories (e.g., based on merchants being on a blacklist or a whitelist, where leash parameters limit usage of the card to merchants on a whitelist and/or not allowing card usage for merchants on a blacklist). Shrivastava [0118-0121]; [0168]; [0175]; [0215]; Fig. 4E; Shrivastava Claim 6. Shrivastava differs from the claimed invention, in part, because Shrivastava does not explicitly disclose applying a predictive model to the spending history to determine the one or more restrictions. Examiner has removed Lee from the rejection of claim 11 and has added a new reference, Babcock, who teaches applying a predictive model (i.e., a machine learning model) to the spending history (i.e., to a transaction/purchase history of the user) to determine one or more restrictions (i.e., update/change the content of transaction restrictions, e.g., merchant identity restrictions) on the VCN (i.e., on the QR code) based on the one or more merchant categories (i.e., based on the merchant identity information). Babcock [0084]; [0132]; [0176]; [0279]; [0332]. Examiner contends that the combination of Shrivastava, Babcock and Han renders claims 1, 11 and 20 obvious.
Applicant argues that Eidson does not disclose the features noted above and found in claim 11. Amendment, pp. 21-22. Examiner agrees, however it is noted that Eidson is not, and was not, used to teach any of the features currently found in claim 11.
For the above reasons, and for those set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection above, all of the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is cited in the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art prior to the effective filling date of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Zhang et al. (US 10,445,152 B1) discloses where a system dynamically generates event frequency distribution models for populations and for individual users by automatically modeling data traversed, accessed, and derived from complex and multi-dimensional data structures. The system employs principles of artificial intelligence and machine-learning to automatically update the event frequency distribution models. Zhang Col. 2 lines 11-17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON FENSTERMACHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM ET, Alternate Fridays Off.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571-272-7575. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698