Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1,3,8,15 are amended
Claims 1-20 are pending
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Applicant has not addressed the official notice taken in the prior art rejection of claim 6. Accordingly, the facts noticed therein are deemed Applicant Admitted Prior Art. (“AAPA”)
Response to Applicant Remarks
Applicant’s well-articulated remarks have been considered but are unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, the examiner notes that Applicant has added limitations directed to receiving real time transaction rate information from payment providers in communication with a merchant system and displaying the rate information and an offer. The examiner suggests that this limitation does not constitute more than receiving and displaying information. In the context of the invention, the recited steps are understood to take place prior to a customer selecting a payment method for completing a payment transaction. The examiner suggests affirmatively amending the claim to recite this selection and completion of the payment transaction. Communicating with the payment provider in real time to obtain rate information prior to the customer selecting the payment source and completing the transaction would be understood to be somewhat unusual and meaningful limitation in combination with this workflow.
Applicant’s amendments are addressed by the newly cited art.
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 1-20 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. Regarding independent claims 1,8,15 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of comparing payment methods which is a mental process. Other than reciting a processor and device nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the processor and device the limitations on receive transaction rates corresponding to payment methods, display rates, receive offer, display data is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the above limitations related to comparing payment methods stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions. (fundamental economic practice) Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of processor or device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the payment comparison steps. The subject matter of claims 2 (merchant is physical or online), 3/15 (offer is discount percentage), 4/17 (transaction rate comprises percentage fee), 5/18 (relationship between fees and discounts), 6 (discount for using merchant card), 7 (introductory discount for new merchant card), 9 (offer time period), 10/19 (send offer to proximal customer), 11/20 (networking protocols), 12 (offer is tiered discount), 13 (offer is financing), 14 (financing interest rate based on purchase amount) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. Although claims 1/11/19/20 describe aspects of networking, at the level they are claimed, they do not appear to be an improvement to technology beyond implementation by generic computers. (MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”) These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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.
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 of this title, 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 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14, 15,16,17,18,19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Shah 20160225011 in view of
Slusser 20170004481 in view of AAPA
Regarding Claim 1,
one or more processors coupled to one or more memory devices, the one or more
memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a plurality of transaction rates corresponding to a plurality of potential payment methods…
Shah is directed to a system for calculating card or account based rewards for display to a user. (Shah, abstract; para 0028, “ [0028] When a user wishes to make a purchase, the user may be on-line or at a physical retail store. The principles of the present disclosure remain the same in both instances. The information about the user's programs has been gathered and stored in the database 102 and is available when the user wishes to make a purchase. In one example, the user presents a clerk at a retail store with an item for purchase. The user identifies himself or herself, using a store account number, a phone number used by the store account, or some other way, such as by swiping a debit card or a credit card, inputting alternative payment facilitation information, or scanning an EMV card or an RFID chip or fob, or the like. This identifies the user so that the user's rewards, offers, or other incentives may be checked. The clerk then scans a bar code or other indicia of the article. The retail store's computer system then searches for a price for the item and displays the price to the user on a retail or point-of-sale terminal of the retail store. With the price known, the system now searches for the user's rewards, offers, or other incentive to see which rewards, offers, or other incentive the user can apply from the user's rewards, offers, or other incentive programs. If the user is on-line, and the user has logged in to an account of an on-line retailer, the user will be known to the merchant/seller, and the earlier step of identifying the user may not be necessary.”)
in real-time or near real-time via an application programming interface (API) between the merchant computing system and at least one of a payment provider computing system associated with a payment provider or a transaction processing device associated with a transaction processing entity, … and a rewards rate associated with the corresponding potential payment method;
Shah , para 0051, “[0051] In one embodiment, the user may present the item for purchase and use one of his or her credit cards, debit cards, or other account available to the user to pay for a desired purchase. The merchant's system may then conduct the search for the best card or account before transmitting information concerning the purchase to the credit card network or to the financial institution that issues the card. In this embodiment, the merchant's system may contact the third party facility to conduct the search for the best method for payment. In another embodiment, the merchant's system may have a database of rewards for the user and may be able to conduct the search without directly contacting the third party facility. This system is more accurate, of course, if the merchant's system, and database, is updated frequently, e.g., daily, to keep track of the various rewards, points, alerts and other information needed to keep current. If available, the user's offer system may be searched for any available offers already selected and stored by the user (e.g. which they may have forgotten), soon-to-expire offers, or the like. “; para 0021, “This information may be accessed through the database 102, accessed through an API to receive exported underlying information, and the like. The exported underlying information can be complete card information, categories of rewards, offers, or incentives available, a unique identifier, and the like.”)
display the plurality of transaction rates via a merchant user device;
receive a transaction offer from the merchant user device;
generate display data including a plurality of payment options corresponding to the plurality of potential payment methods and the transaction offer; and
cause a graphical user interface based on the display data to be displayed to a customer.
(Shah, para 0034, “ [0034] An example of this kind of information is depicted in FIG. 4, which displays the price discounts for the contemplated purchase as well as the rewards balances in the user's various accounts. FIG. 4 depicts the situation in which the rewards are tallied to show the totals if each card or account is used to make the purchase. FIG. 4 shows the available price discount for the item of interest, for any discount available under cards A, B, C and D. The remainder of the columns show the rewards balances for the user if the purchase is made with the A, B, C or D card, respectively. The user will reach these rewards balances only for the card or account used for the purchase.”; para 0054, “The results of the search may then be presented 85 to the user. In these figures, and in the claims, it is understood that the “user” may be the person contemplating purchasing the product or the service. In some instances, however, if the user is at a physical store and a clerk is assisting the person, the results of the search may be presented to the clerk, e.g., on the store's point-of-sale terminal, so that the clerk can assist the person in making the decision of which card or account to use. The clerk may then relay the results to the user or cause the user to view a POS or other screen displaying the results.”)
Shah does not explicitly disclose
each of the plurality of transaction rates comprising an interchange rate associated with a corresponding potential payment method of the plurality of potential payment methods,
Slusser is directed to a system for displaying card fees to a card user. (Slusser, background). Slusser discloses different institutions may impose different rates for a card transaction. (Slusser, para 0104, “[0104] In one embodiment of the present invention, the step of automatically indicating alternative credit card and/or debit card issuing banks having lower interchange rates for the specific transaction further includes presenting information via the web-based graphical user interface “GUI” (or other interface) showing a comparison of a multiplicity of alternative card types and/or issuing banks that provide lower interchange rates, and where applicable lower convenience fees, for the specific transaction. Also, the interchange rates associated with each of those cards is displayed. In another embodiment, other steps are included for prompting the cardholder to input multiple card numbers from different cards into separate fields in a web-based GUI (or other interface); with a subsequent step of the system automatically generating a new convenience fee for each card number inputted by the cardholder and received by the server associated with the system. Preferably, for multiple card number entries, the cardholder is presented and provides an input to select the desired card number and associated convenience fee, approve the transaction, submit electronically and complete the transaction.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Shah with the fee determination of Slusser with the motivation of obtaining cardholder approval of fees. (Slusser, summary).
Shah does not explicitly disclose
an interest rate associated with the corresponding potential payment method,
However, the limitation is obvious in view of AAPA. AAPA teaches that merchants may provide merchant credit cards offering merchant discounts. For example a Lowes card holder could receive discounts for using their card to make purchases in a Lowes retail store. A new Lowes card holder could choose special financing offers instead of the 5% discount. (as evidenced by Lowes, 2/2023,
https://web.archive.org/web/20230206235438/https://www.lowes.com/l/Credit/consumer-credit-center, “Thinking about applying for the Lowe’s Advantage Card? If you want a card with rewards and advantages like 5% off* when you shop, or 6 months Special Financing** on purchases of $299 or more, or 84 fixed monthly payments with reduced APR† financing on purchases of $2,000 or more, a Lowe’s Advantage Credit Card may be right for you.”). It can be seen that all the claimed elements are taught by Shah, Slusser or Official Notice. Merchant cards by AAPA does not change the functions taught by Shah or Slusser. Purchasing could be performed the same way independent whether the parties had a merchant card. Since the function of the elements in Shah, Slusser and AAPA do not interfere with each other the results would be predictable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system of Shah and Slusser merchant cards as taught by AAPA since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Shah, Slusser and AAPA disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the merchant is one of a physical store retailer or an online retailer.
See prior art rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Shah, Slusser and AAPA disclose the system of claim 3.
Shah does not explicitly disclose
wherein the transaction rate for each potential payment method of the plurality of potential payment methods comprises a percentage-based fee applied to the potential payment method by one or more of a card-issuing financial institution, a payment network provider, or a transaction processing entity.
Slusser is directed to a system for displaying card fees to a card user. (Slusser, background). Slusser discloses different institutions may impose different rates for a card transaction. (Slusser, para 0104, “[0104] In one embodiment of the present invention, the step of automatically indicating alternative credit card and/or debit card issuing banks having lower interchange rates for the specific transaction further includes presenting information via the web-based graphical user interface “GUI” (or other interface) showing a comparison of a multiplicity of alternative card types and/or issuing banks that provide lower interchange rates, and where applicable lower convenience fees, for the specific transaction. Also, the interchange rates associated with each of those cards is displayed. In another embodiment, other steps are included for prompting the cardholder to input multiple card numbers from different cards into separate fields in a web-based GUI (or other interface); with a subsequent step of the system automatically generating a new convenience fee for each card number inputted by the cardholder and received by the server associated with the system. Preferably, for multiple card number entries, the cardholder is presented and provides an input to select the desired card number and associated convenience fee, approve the transaction, submit electronically and complete the transaction.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Shah with the fee determination of Slusser with the motivation of obtaining cardholder approval of fees. (Slusser, summary).
Regarding Claim 5, Shah, Slusser and AAPA disclose the system of claim 4.
wherein a first percentage-based fee applied to the first potential payment method is lower than a second percentage-based fee applied to a second potential payment method, and wherein the discount percentage is higher than the first percentage-based fee and lower than the second percentage-based fee.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 and 4. The examiner notes that discounts/mileage/benefits may vary from card to card per Shah. Similarly fees could differ per Slusser. That different cards could have high/lower discounts or fees relative to one another would be obvious to try or happenstance based on the business need of the institution managing the card.
Regarding Claim 6, Shah, Slusser and AAPA disclose the system of claim 1.
Shah does not explicitly disclose
wherein the transaction offer is a discount percentage for using an existing merchant payment card provided by the merchant.
However, the limitation is obvious in view of official notice. The examiner takes official notice that merchants may provide merchant credit cards offering merchant discounts. For example a Lowes or Amazon card holder could receive discounts for using their card to make purchases in a Lowes retail store or Amazon website respectively. A new Lowes card holder could choose special financing offers instead of the 5% discount. (as evidenced by Lowes, 2/2023,
https://web.archive.org/web/20230206235438/https://www.lowes.com/l/Credit/consumer-credit-center, “Thinking about applying for the Lowe’s Advantage Card? If you want a card with rewards and advantages like 5% off* when you shop, or 6 months Special Financing** on purchases of $299 or more, or 84 fixed monthly payments with reduced APR† financing on purchases of $2,000 or more, a Lowe’s Advantage Credit Card may be right for you.”). A TJ Maxx card holder could expect a 5% discount for purchases and an introductory 10% on their first purchase. It can be seen that all the claimed elements are taught by Shah or Official notice. Merchant cards by official notice does not change the functions taught by Shah. Purchasing could be performed the same way independent whether the parties had a merchant card. Since the function of the elements in Shah and official notice do not interfere with each other the results would be predictable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system of Shah merchant cards as taught by official notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 7, Shah, Slusser and AAPA disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the transaction offer is an introductory discount percentage for a transaction if a new merchant payment card is opened by the customer.
See prior art rejection of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8
See prior art rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Shah, Slusser and AAPA disclose the method of claim 8.
Shah does not explicitly disclose
further comprising receiving, by the merchant computing system, a time period during which the transaction offer is valid from the merchant user device.
(Shah, para 0039, “For example, the third party marketer may have an arrangement with a preferred credit card company and higher rewards may be offered for purchases made during a particular window of time, or with certain preferred sellers, or for purchases in certain preferred categories during that period of time. “)
Regarding Claim 10, Shah, Slusser and AAPA disclose the method of claim 8.
detecting, by the merchant computing system, a customer device associated with the customer proximate a point-of-sale location associated with the merchant; and
transmitting, by the merchant computing system, a notification to the customer device including the transaction offer.
(Shah, para 0049, “[0049] When this search is conducted, the merchant's system may also query the third party facility as to whether any other special offers are available. The offer may depend on the identity of the merchant, the identity of the prospective buyer, the nature or category of the merchandise or service contemplated for purchase, the card or account selected and so forth. In one embodiment, the user has a mobile device equipped with a global positioning sensor (GPS) or the user is otherwise able to be tracked or identified. In this embodiment, the user is identified when he or she enters the store, such as through a mobile phone number or other identifier, by launching an app, or the like, and is sent a reminder by the third-party facility to the effect that the user may be eligible for an offer, a reward or other desirable perquisite at the particular store.”)
Regarding Claim 11, Shah, Slusser and AAPA disclose the method of claim 10.
wherein detecting the customer device is performed using one or more of a Wi-Fi connectivity detection, a Bluetooth signal, or a short-range communication signal.
(Shah, para 0068-69, “[0068] The methods, program codes, and instructions described herein and elsewhere may be implemented on a cellular network having multiple cells. The cellular network may either be frequency division multiple access (FDMA) network or code division multiple access (CDMA) network. The cellular network may include mobile devices, cell sites, base stations, repeaters, antennas, towers, and the like. The cell network may be a GSM, GPRS, 3G, EVDO, mesh, or other networks types.
[0069] The methods, programs codes, and instructions described herein and elsewhere may be implemented on or through mobile devices. The mobile devices may include navigation devices, cell phones, mobile phones, mobile personal digital assistants, laptops, palmtops, netbooks, pagers, electronic books readers, music players and the like. These devices may include, apart from other components, a storage medium such as a flash memory, buffer, RAM, ROM and one or more computing devices. The computing devices associated with mobile devices may be enabled to execute program codes, methods, and instructions stored thereon. Alternatively, the mobile devices may be configured to execute instructions in collaboration with other devices. The mobile devices may communicate with base stations interfaced with servers and configured to execute program codes. The mobile devices may communicate on a peer to peer network, mesh network, or other communications network. The program code may be stored on the storage medium associated with the server and executed by a computing device embedded within the server. The base station may include a computing device and a storage medium. The storage device may store program codes and instructions executed by the computing devices associated with the base station.”)
Regarding Claim 13, Shah, Slusser and AAPA disclose the method of claim 8.
wherein the transaction offer is a financing option provided by the merchant.
See prior art rejection of claim 6
Regarding Claim 14, Shah, Slusser and AAPA disclose the method of claim 13.
wherein the financing option includes a payback interest rate selected based on a purchase amount associated with a transaction.
See prior art rejection of claim 6
Regarding Claim 15,16,19,20
See prior art rejection of claims 1,1,10,11
Regarding Claims 17,18
See prior art rejections of claims 4,5
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Shah 20160225011 in view of Slusser in view of AAPA in view of
Mitchell US20050065848A1
Regarding Claim 12, Shah, Slusser and AAPA disclose the method of claim 8.
Shah does not explicitly disclose
wherein the transaction offer is a tiered discount percentage offer comprising a discount percentage selected based on a purchase amount associated with a transaction.
Mitchell is directed to a card rebate system. (Mitchell, abstract). Mitchell discloses tiered rebates based on spend amount. (Mitchell, fig.2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Shah, Slusser and AAPA with the tiered discount of Mitchell with the motivation of increasing customer loyalty. (Mitchell, background)
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Shah 20160225011 in view of Slusser in view of AAPA in view of
“Clarity Payment Hub Interpayments Solution - Process Credit Card & Invoice Payments from any ERP”, 12/2021, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuLyClQII8w
Regarding Claim 3, Shah, Slusser and AAPA disclose the system of claim 1.
Shah does not explicitly disclose
wherein the plurality of potential payment methods comprises a cash payment method, and wherein the transaction offer is a discount percentage for using the cash payment method.
Clarity is directed to a credit card payment hub service. (Clarity, p.1). Clarity discloses that a customer payment options may be evaluated and a debit card may receive a cash discount compared to a credit card. (Clarity, transcript,
“0:00
[Music]
0:05
hi
0:05
ron from clarity
0:07
today we're going to look at the clarity
0:09
payment hub solution and payment
0:11
processing via the hubs virtual terminal
0:15
a ui element of the solution is the
0:17
virtual terminal which allows either
0:19
customers or customer sales reps to view
0:21
and pay invoice payments via the
0:23
customer's credit or debit cards
0:26
clarity connect allows us to connect the
0:28
solution to any erp crm emr or financial
0:32
application to pull either pci card
0:35
tokens invoices or post payments
0:39
it also allows us to connect to any
0:41
payment gateway or pci provider
0:44
and finally with our inner payments
0:46
integration it now allows us to capture
0:49
and collect all the credit card
0:51
processing fees automatically
0:54
let's take a look at how this all works
0:56
and what it means to you the retailer
How it Works
0:59
it all starts with a credit card token
1:01
being stored either in the cloud at the
1:02
pci provider's vault or in your erp
1:06
remember a few years back when you paid
1:08
for gas if you paid by cash they offered
1:11
you a 4 cent per gallon discount
1:13
well that was the retailers trying to
1:15
recoup some of that credit card
1:17
surcharge for each credit card
1:18
transaction
1:20
over time it became too difficult to do
1:22
so they did away with it
1:24
with the pci token stored in the cloud
1:27
credit card transactions became much
1:29
more safe and secure so now almost all
1:31
transactions are done via cart
1:33
especially with online sales accounting
1:35
for more than brick and mortar by a
1:37
large margin
1:39
so let's walk through a typical online
1:41
transaction for a thousand dollars
1:44
the order gets placed and sent to the
1:46
payment gateway which processes the
1:48
order charging their average three
1:51
percent processing fee
1:52
which ultimately means that you get
1:54
roughly a net 970 from each thousand
1:57
dollar order paid by credit card
1:59
pretty much every retailer is in this
2:01
same situation
2:03
but what if there was a way to change
2:04
this
2:05
that's where the clarity payment hub
2:07
comes in
2:08
starting with our integration platform
2:10
as the connection hub and adding our
2:12
customer and sales rep virtual terminal
2:15
clarity automates the crediting and
2:17
debiting of your customers cards
2:19
automatically processing the payments
2:20
into your erp or financial application
2:24
but that doesn't really change anything
2:25
more than improving the automation of
2:27
payments
2:28
where the real financial idea comes into
2:30
play is our integration and partnership
2:32
with inner payments
2:34
so what does this change well for every
2:36
payment that comes in before connect
2:38
talks to the payment gateway to process
2:40
each payment we ping enter payments and
2:42
ask them to analyze the card
2:45
is it a creditor debit card or a debit
2:47
card being processed as a credit card
2:50
if it's a debit card inner payments
2:52
tells us that there is a zero percent
2:54
surcharge for processing that card so we
2:57
process the payment as posted
2:59
however if the transaction will be
3:01
charged to processing fee such as with
3:03
the credit card payments then it will
3:05
tell us to add the processing fee to the
3:07
transaction
3:09
so mid-stream the payment hub displays
3:12
to the customer or sales rep what the
3:14
surcharge will be adds it to the price
3:16
and processes the new amount
3:19
so your original thousand dollar order
3:21
now includes the thirty dollar surcharge
3:23
and it's collected instead of paid so
3:26
that means there's a net change of six
3:28
percent for every transaction
3:31
imagine increasing your annual revenue
3:33
an extra six thousand for every hundred
3:35
thousand or sixty thousand for every
3:37
million in credit card transactions
3:39
forever
Demo
3:41
so now that we know how it works let's
3:43
walk through a demo of the virtual
3:45
terminal to see how a sales rep would
3:46
process the payment on a customer
3:48
invoice
3:50
first we come to the home page of the
3:51
virtual terminal which can be branded
3:53
styled or embedded in your existing
3:56
website
3:57
logging in as a sales rep clarity csr
4:00
i'm provided with a contextual list of
4:03
all the customers assigned to clarity
4:05
csr
4:06
so this list will be different for every
4:08
sales rep and if a rep goes on vacation
4:11
access can be assigned to another rep
4:14
once i've selected one of my accounts
4:16
the terminal automatically loads all of
4:18
the historical invoices for that
4:20
customer
4:22
what's displayed depends on the
4:23
integration with your erp or financial
4:26
application
4:27
options for credit memos sales orders
4:30
refunds and more can also be added
4:33
once loaded i can choose to view the
4:36
details of any single invoice which
4:37
provides me with all the invoice details
4:40
and the options to pay this invoice
4:43
clicking on make a payment will bring up
4:45
the payment model which auto calculates
4:47
the processing fee which would be zero
4:49
if a debit card was chosen you can see
4:52
at the bottom here we can customize the
4:54
text displayed to either the rep or the
4:56
customer regarding the processing fees
4:59
if a credit card is chosen then it
5:01
displays the message about the
5:02
processing fee shows the fee being added
5:05
to the total for processing thus
5:06
recouping your credit card fees when
5:08
submitted for processing
5:11
the payment hub also provides the
5:12
ability to pay any and all outstanding
5:14
invoices by clicking on pay invoices
5:17
from the initial invoice view
5:20
it looks up all unpaid invoices or those
5:23
with the remaining balance and displays
5:25
them in the ui so you can choose or
5:27
enter how much of each outstanding
5:29
balance you want paid
5:32
at the bottom you can see that my demo
5:34
had many outstanding invoices totaling
5:36
more than 84 thousand dollars including
5:39
our invoice number 92 that we just
5:41
looked at
5:43
so that's the clarity payment hub and
5:45
enter payments solution which enables
5:48
you to capture all of the credit card
5:49
processing fees that are eating into
5:51
your profit margin
5:54
thanks for watching”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Shah, Slusser and AAPA with the cash discount of Clarity with the motivation of reducing merchant credit card fees. Id.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627