DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-8 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
Application 18/356,806 was filed on 07/21/2023 and claims benefit of JAPAN 2023-004715 01/16/2023.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or § 112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. (MPEP 2106). The claims are directed to a method and apparatus which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). The recitation of the claimed invention is analyzed as follows, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to: calculate a fee as compensation for a product or service; and
adjust, if settlement by a first settlement option selected initially is insufficient to settle a full amount of the calculated fee, a monetary amount to be settled by the first settlement option and a monetary amount to be settled by a second settlement option different from the first settlement option, so that the monetary amount to be settled by the second settlement option is in units acceptable for settlement by the second settlement option.
The claim as a whole recites a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers collecting and analyzing data to facilitate the completion of a financial transaction. This is a fundamental economic practice of a financial transaction; a commercial interaction, such as for business relations; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which are certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, the claims cover the use of an information processing apparatus to provide for collecting and analyzing data to facilitate the completion of a financial transaction. As the steps could be performed by a human without a computer, the claim limitations fall within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A, prong 1: YES).
Moreover, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than reciting a “An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to:”, to perform the steps of “calculating”, “adjusting”, and “settling”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being a certain method for organizing human activity or mental process. The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and analyzing data to facilitate the completion of a financial transaction in a computer environment. The additional computer elements recited in the claim limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception utilizing generic computer components.
For example, the Specification discloses “[0041] The CPU 11 is a processor that controls operations by the image forming apparatus 10 by executing predetermined processing on the basis of a control program stored in the memory 12 or the storage device 13. Note that although the CPU 11 is described as reading out and executing a control program stored in the memory 12 or the storage device 13 in the exemplary embodiment, the control program is not limited thereto. The control program may also be provided by being recorded onto a computer-readable recording medium. For example, the program may be provided by being recorded on an optical disc, such as a Compact Disc Read-Only Memory (CD-ROM) or a Digital Versatile Disc Read-Only Memory (DVD-ROM), or by being recorded on a semiconductor memory, such as Universal Serial Bus (USB) memory or a memory card. Additionally, the control program may also be acquired from an external apparatus over a communication channel connected to the communication interface 14.”
Thus, the specification supports that general purpose computers or computer components are utilized to implement the steps of the abstract idea.
Merely implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole, in viewing the additional elements both individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A prong two: No)
The claim does not include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to:”, to perform the steps of “calculating”, “adjusting”, and “settling”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. The claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of collecting and analyzing data to facilitate the completion of a financial transaction in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Such additional elements are determined to not contain an inventive concept according to MPEP 2106.05(f). It should be noted that (1) the “recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”, and (2) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice, commercial interaction, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, mental process, or mathematical calculation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”.
Claims 7 and 8 are substantially similar to claim 1, thus, they are rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process comprising:”.
For similar reasons as explained above with regard to claim 1, under Step 2A, prong two, these additional elements are merely applying generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. Under Step 2B, when viewing the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception itself as the claimed computer-related technologies are mere tools for implementing the abstract idea as explained with regard to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-6 merely limit the abstract idea and do not recite any further additional elements beyond the cited abstract idea and the elements addressed above, thus, they do not amount to significantly more. The dependent claims are abstract for the reasons presented above because there are no 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. Thus, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 1-8 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mugford, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0178113.
As per claim 1,
Mugford explicitly teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to: calculate a fee as compensation for a product or service; and
(Mugford US20170178113 at paras. 77-89) ("[0081] FIG. 6 is a flowchart of an exemplary process 600 for responding to a transaction request and allocating funds for the underlying purchase, consistent with disclosed embodiments." "[0083] At step 604, multi-source transaction provider system 114 may determine whether the funding sources designated by the default allocation settings are sufficient to fund the transaction. If sufficient funds exist (step 604; YES), multi-source transaction provider system 114 may approve the transaction request (see also step 412; YES). If insufficient funds do not exist using the default allocation settings (step 604; NO), multi-source transaction provider system 114 may identify additional allocations and/or funding sources associated with the multi-source payment account to fund the purchase (step 606)." "[0077] A user (e.g., user 104) may operate computing device 102 to indicate that all transactions below $100 are funded entirely by a checking account associated with the user. Thus, in embodiments where use of the primary account number (PAN) for a credit card account associated with multi-source transaction profile initiates process 400 (or other disclosed embodiments), the purchase may be processed by FSP system 116 and merchant system 110 as a credit card transaction even though funded by a debit card transaction. Regardless, computing device 102 may, in turn, transmit the user-inputted default allocation settings to multi-source transaction provider system 114 for association to the user's multi-source transaction profile.")
adjust, if settlement by a first settlement option selected initially is insufficient to settle a full amount of the calculated fee, a monetary amount to be settled by the first settlement option and a monetary amount to be settled by a second settlement option different from the first settlement option, so that the monetary amount to be settled by the second settlement option is in units acceptable for settlement by the second settlement option.
(Mugford US20170178113 at paras. 77-89) ("[0083] If insufficient funds do not exist using the default allocation settings (step 604; NO), multi-source transaction provider system 114 may identify additional allocations and/or funding sources associated with the multi-source payment account to fund the purchase (step 606). For example, FIG. 9A depicts an exemplary user interface 901 on computing device 102. As depicted in FIG. 9A, multi-source transaction provider system 114 may transmit instructions to computing device 102 for displaying an interface 901 on computing device 102 requesting input from user 104 as to whether an alternative allocation of funds may be used to fund the purchase. In particular, interface 901 may include a window 903 identifying a particular transaction and asking whether the user would like to modify default funding sources 905 and/or their respective allocations. Interface 901 may further identify the default funding source(s) and allocations under the default allocation settings that are insufficient to fund transaction." "[0078] In another example, FIG. 11A depicts an exemplary user interface 1101 on computing device 102. As shown in FIG. 11A, computing device 102 may display interface 1101 to receive default allocation settings associated with transactions between $100 and $1000. Interface 1101 may include window 1103 listing potential payment sources available to include in the default allocation settings." "[0080] The default allocation settings discussed above with respect to step 516 and FIGS. 11A and 11B are exemplary only. Fewer, different, or additional default allocation settings may be associated with user's multi-source transaction profile, consistent with disclosed embodiments. In some embodiments, different default settings may be used for different transaction categories. For example, default allocation settings may distinguish which potential payment sources should be used, and in what relative amounts, to fund different purchases based on the transaction type and/or any other distinguishing feature discernable from a transaction authorization request.")
As per claim 6,
Mugford explicitly teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to display the settlement amounts for each of the first and second settlement options for each combination of settlement options when the first settlement option is combined with each of a plurality of second settlement options.
(Mugford US20170178113 at paras. 65-66, 76-89) ("[0077] In some embodiments, multi-source transaction provider system 114 may transmit instructions to computing device 102 for displaying an interface on computing device 102 requesting identification of which potential payment sources should be used, and in what relative amounts, to fund different purchases. For example, computing device 102 may display an interface for receiving default allocation settings associated with transactions below $100. A user (e.g., user 104) may operate computing device 102 to indicate that all transactions below $100 are funded entirely by a checking account associated with the user. Thus, in embodiments where use of the primary account number (PAN) for a credit card account associated with multi-source transaction profile initiates process 400 (or other disclosed embodiments), the purchase may be processed by FSP system 116 and merchant system 110 as a credit card transaction even though funded by a debit card transaction. Regardless, computing device 102 may, in turn, transmit the user-inputted default allocation settings to multi-source transaction provider system 114 for association to the user's multi-source transaction profile.")
Claims 7 and 8 are substantially similar to claim 1, thus, they are rejected on similar grounds.
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.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mugford, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0178113; in view of Gupta, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0405721.
As per claim 2,
Mugford explicitly teaches:
and if the remainder is a monetary amount that is settleable in units acceptable for settlement by the second settlement option
(Mugford US20170178113 at paras. 65-66, 77-89) ("[0065] if the transaction authorization request is approved (step 412; YES), multi-source transaction provider system 114 may determine which of the payment sources (step 414) from among the potential payment sources identified in step 408 should be used to fund the purchase. In some embodiments, user 104's multi-source payment account profile may include default allocation settings that define the default allocation of funds from among the identified of potential payment sources for the purchase." "[0066] At step 416, multi-source transaction provider system 114 may allocate the funds among the determined payment sources to cover the purchase underlying the transaction authorization request." "[0067] For example, in some embodiments, multi-source transaction provider system 114 may coordinate the debit (for debit accounts via debit service platform 116b) and/or credit (for credit accounts via credit service platform 116a) of the payment sources in proportion to user 104's default settings for funding the purchase." "[0083] At step 604, multi-source transaction provider system 114 may determine whether the funding sources designated by the default allocation settings are sufficient to fund the transaction. If sufficient funds exist (step 604; YES), multi-source transaction provider system 114 may approve the transaction request (see also step 412; YES). If insufficient funds do not exist using the default allocation settings (step 604; NO), multi-source transaction provider system 114 may identify additional allocations and/or funding sources associated with the multi-source payment account to fund the purchase (step 606).")
Mugford does not explicitly teach, however, Gupta does teach:
wherein the processor is configured to calculate a remainder by subtracting a maximum monetary amount settleable by the first settlement option from the calculated fee, [and if the remainder is a monetary amount that is settleable in units acceptable for settlement by the second settlement option], the processor is configured to set the monetary amount to be settled by the first settlement option to the maximum monetary amount settleable by the first settlement option, and set the monetary amount to be settled by the second settlement option to the remainder.
(Gupta US20220405721 at Figs. 5A-6J, paras. 20-23, 31-33) ("[0032] If the product is eligible, in step 206, the cost of the product is allocated to the first payment instrument. In step 207, the system determines whether any fund remains on the payment instrument. If the payment instrument's fund has been exhausted, the system proceeds to step 210. If some fund remains, the system moves to step 208 to determine whether there are more products on the list of products. If so, the system repeats the eligibility determination in step 205 for the next item on the list. When all items have been checked for eligibility for a payment instrument, the system determines whether all item costs have been allocated in step 209. If unallocated cost remains, the system selects the next payment instrument according to the allocation order in step 210 and repeats steps 205-209 with the next payment instrument. In some embodiments, at least one payment instrument may comprise an unrestricted payment method that is eligible to pay for the cost of any product for sale. In some embodiments, when the next payment instrument is an unrestricted payment instrument, the system may allocate any remaining cost to the unrestricted payment instrument without repeating steps 210-208.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mugford and Gupta, because it allows for an improved system to allow the consumer to split payment between multiple payment options. (Gupta at Abstract and paras. 2-3).
As per claim 4,
Mugford does not explicitly teach, however, Gupta does teach:
wherein if a unit fee per unit of product or service is different between a case of settling by the first settlement option and a case of settling by the second settlement option, the processor is configured to set the fee for a number of units settleable by the first settlement option as the monetary amount to be settled by the first settlement option, and set the fee for the number of units not settled by the first settlement option as the monetary amount to be settled by the second settlement option.
(Gupta US20220405721 at Figs. 5A-6J, paras. 20-23, 31-33) ("[0022] In some embodiments, eligibility rules may comprise one or more of included products, included product categories, included product characteristics, excluded products, excluded product categories, excluded product characteristics, maximum per-item cost, maximum total cost, maximum per-period spending, etc. For example, rules for a group of payment instruments may exclude the purchase of alcohol and tobacco products. In another example, rules for another group of payment instruments may include only health care products." "[0032] If the product is eligible, in step 206, the cost of the product is allocated to the first payment instrument. In step 207, the system determines whether any fund remains on the payment instrument. If the payment instrument's fund has been exhausted, the system proceeds to step 210. If some fund remains, the system moves to step 208 to determine whether there are more products on the list of products. If so, the system repeats the eligibility determination in step 205 for the next item on the list. When all items have been checked for eligibility for a payment instrument, the system determines whether all item costs have been allocated in step 209. If unallocated cost remains, the system selects the next payment instrument according to the allocation order in step 210 and repeats steps 205-209 with the next payment instrument. In some embodiments, at least one payment instrument may comprise an unrestricted payment method that is eligible to pay for the cost of any product for sale. In some embodiments, when the next payment instrument is an unrestricted payment instrument, the system may allocate any remaining cost to the unrestricted payment instrument without repeating steps 210-208.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mugford and Gupta, because it allows for an improved system to allow the consumer to split payment between multiple payment options. (Gupta at Abstract and paras. 2-3).
As per claim 5,
Mugford does not explicitly teach, however, Gupta does teach:
wherein if the unit fee in the case of settling by the first settlement option is lower than the unit fee in the case of settling by the second settlement option, the processor is configured to set the fee for a maximum number of units settleable by the first settlement option as the monetary amount to be settled by the first settlement option.
(Gupta US20220405721 at Figs. 5A-6J, paras. 20-23, 31-33) ("[0022] In some embodiments, eligibility rules may comprise one or more of included products, included product categories, included product characteristics, excluded products, excluded product categories, excluded product characteristics, maximum per-item cost, maximum total cost, maximum per-period spending, etc. For example, rules for a group of payment instruments may exclude the purchase of alcohol and tobacco products. In another example, rules for another group of payment instruments may include only health care products." "[0032] If the product is eligible, in step 206, the cost of the product is allocated to the first payment instrument. In step 207, the system determines whether any fund remains on the payment instrument. If the payment instrument's fund has been exhausted, the system proceeds to step 210. If some fund remains, the system moves to step 208 to determine whether there are more products on the list of products. If so, the system repeats the eligibility determination in step 205 for the next item on the list. When all items have been checked for eligibility for a payment instrument, the system determines whether all item costs have been allocated in step 209. If unallocated cost remains, the system selects the next payment instrument according to the allocation order in step 210 and repeats steps 205-209 with the next payment instrument. In some embodiments, at least one payment instrument may comprise an unrestricted payment method that is eligible to pay for the cost of any product for sale. In some embodiments, when the next payment instrument is an unrestricted payment instrument, the system may allocate any remaining cost to the unrestricted payment instrument without repeating steps 210-208.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mugford and Gupta, because it allows for an improved system to allow the consumer to split payment between multiple payment options. (Gupta at Abstract and paras. 2-3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mugford, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0178113; in view of Gupta, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0405721; in view of Trubnikov, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0286925.
As per claim 3,
Mugford explicitly teaches:
wherein if the remainder is a monetary amount that is not settleable in units acceptable for settlement by the second settlement option,
(Mugford US20170178113 at paras. 65-66, 76-89) ("[0065] if the transaction authorization request is approved (step 412; YES), multi-source transaction provider system 114 may determine which of the payment sources (step 414) from among the potential payment sources identified in step 408 should be used to fund the purchase. In some embodiments, user 104's multi-source payment account profile may include default allocation settings that define the default allocation of funds from among the identified of potential payment sources for the purchase." "[0066] At step 416, multi-source transaction provider system 114 may allocate the funds among the determined payment sources to cover the purchase underlying the transaction authorization request." "[0067] For example, in some embodiments, multi-source transaction provider system 114 may coordinate the debit (for debit accounts via debit service platform 116b) and/or credit (for credit accounts via credit service platform 116a) of the payment sources in proportion to user 104's default settings for funding the purchase." "[0083] At step 604, multi-source transaction provider system 114 may determine whether the funding sources designated by the default allocation settings are sufficient to fund the transaction. If sufficient funds exist (step 604; YES), multi-source transaction provider system 114 may approve the transaction request (see also step 412; YES). If insufficient funds do not exist using the default allocation settings (step 604; NO), multi-source transaction provider system 114 may identify additional allocations and/or funding sources associated with the multi-source payment account to fund the purchase (step 606).")
Mugford and Gupta do not explicitly teach, however, Trubnikov does teach:
the processor is configured to round up the remainder in units acceptable for settlement by the second settlement option to set the monetary amount to be settled by the second settlement option, and set the monetary amount that remains after subtracting the monetary amount to be settled by the second settlement option from the calculated fee as the monetary amount to be settled by the first settlement option.
(Trubnikov US20170286925 at paras. 35-42) ("[0036] In one embodiment shown in FIG. 1, system 100 automatically transfers the difference between the transaction amount and the rounded up monetary unit amount to the aggregate account 110. This automated process occurs without requiring input or actions from the user 102 or a merchant 104. [0037] Additionally, the system 100 transfers the funds, generally through transactions 106 that are conducted through electronic payments, such as credit cards, ATM withdrawals, debit cards, and bank transfers. However, in other embodiments, any payment process for initial transaction 106 may follow system 100, as indicated here. In one embodiment, the system 100 rounds up the transaction price to the nearest dollar. For example, initial transaction 106 for $3.15 is automatically rounded up to $4.00, with the excess $0.85 portion of the $4.00 transferring to the aggregate account 110.")
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mugford, Gupta, and Trubnikov, because it allows for an improved system to facilitate financial transactions by rounding up for transactions and automatically transferring the rounded up amount, by enabling a triggering event to trigger predetermined purchases, by automating transactions at predetermined durations, and to enable automated linking of a payment means. (Trubnikov at Abstract and paras. 2-19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is available for review on Form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT J HASBROUCK whose telephone number is (571)272-3109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Tran can be reached on 571-272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MERRITT J HASBROUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695