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 .
Priority
This application claims the following priority: 1/9/2024
IDS
The following IDS(s) have been considered by the Examiner: None
Examiner Note
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-17, 19-20 and 22 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1, 9, 17 and 20 are the independent claims.
Claims 1, 9, 17 and 20 are amended.
Claims 6, 14, 18 and 21 have been cancelled by applicant.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/21/2026 has been entered.
Examiner notes
The rejection of claim(s) 1-5, 7-13 and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kundtz US2005/0261919 A1, has been vacated in view of applicant’s amendments.
None of the references of record disclose: transmitting, by a transmitter of the processing server, the authorization request to a second computing device for authorization when the generated verified buyer rating is above a predetermined threshold value; or transmitting, by the transmitter of the processing server, an authorization response declining the proposed payment transaction to the computing device when the verified buyer rating is below a predetermined threshold value,
The closest prior art disclosure of this feature is to Johnson. Johnson discloses automatically sending a message from a computing device to a buyer device in response to identification that a confidence rating exceeds a threshold. The communication includes a message including at least one of an offer for placement of an order for an item on behalf of a buyer. However, Johnson is silent regarding authorizing based on a predetermined verified buyer rating threshold.
Response to Arguments
The attorney argues that the claims provide a technical improvement. The attorney argues, that the claims provide a concrete technology-based solution to the technical problem of providing ratings across multiple marketplaces.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The alleged problem of providing ratings across multiple marketplaces and authorizing purchases based on ratings being above or below a certain threshold is not a technological problem, but rather a business/information problem. The claims do not identify any deficiency in computer functionality, network operation, database architecture, or other technological system, nor do they recite a specific improvement to the operation of a computer or another technology.
The examiner further notes, the instant application is providing secure transactions by preventing users to participate in interactions with users (across multiple platforms) that have poor feedback. The examiner notes, preventing user interactions based on feedback is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the industry of online transactions. This is evidenced by paragraph 0002 of the instant application’s specification which discloses, “…many websites can provide information on the authenticity of a merchant and past transaction histories for a consumer to review prior to proceeding with a purchase. As a result, consumers can often proceed with a transaction with the knowledge that the merchant they are transacting with is genuine and they are protected if they are unhappy with their purchase.” The fact that the applicant is providing this service across multiple platforms is just an extension of this abstraction. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)).
The Applicant draws parallels to the majority opinion in CosmoKey Solutions GMBH & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC, 2020-2043 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Applicant notes, “The majority opinion in CosmoKey ruled that the claims were eligible at step two for reciting a specific improvement to authentication that ‘increases security’.”
The Examiner notes, in CosmoKey, the claimed technical improvement was a specific authentication technique that improved computer/network security. In simplified terms, the invention used a mobile device as part of the authentication flow, where a user had to approve a transaction on the device before an authentication function was completed. The improvement was not merely a business improvement as claimed in the instant invention. Unlike the claims in CosmoKey, which recited a specific authentication mechanism that improved the operation of a computer security system, the present claims merely use generic computing components for rating and purchase authorization purposes.
The Examiner notes, the applicant does not provide arguments rebutting the Examiners position regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101, Step 2b Analysis.
The Examiner suggests that a claim amendment regarding the specific computer protocols allowing this improvement across multiple platforms may be beneficial regarding 35 USC 101.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories)
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 17 and 19: method/process.
Claim(s) 9-13, 15-16, 20 and 22: system/machine.
Accordingly, the claim(s) pass step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomena?)
As seen in MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas [R-07.2022], the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are as follows:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, 9, 17, and 20, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for generating a verified buyer rating for a buyer in a proposed payment transaction, comprising:
communicating, by a receiver of a processing server, with at least a plurality of different marketplace platforms and receiving therefrom transaction data for a plurality of processed payment transactions funded by a transaction account, wherein the transaction data includes at least one of: transaction amount, merchant identifier, merchant category code, geographic location, and transaction time;
storing, in an account database of a processing server, an account profile associated with the transaction account including at least an account identifier and the transaction data for the plurality of processed payment transactions funded by the associated transaction account and received from the plurality of different marketplace platforms, wherein the transaction data includes at least one of: transaction amount, merchant identifier, merchant category code, geographic location, and transaction time;
receiving, by the receiver of the processing server, an authorization request for the proposed payment transaction including a plurality of transaction values for the proposed payment transaction funded by the associated transaction account from a computing device, wherein the plurality of transaction transactions values includes at least the account identifier;
generating, by a processor of the processing server, one or more transactional metrics for the transaction account (1) by applying a machine learning algorithm on a transaction history of the transaction account and (2) based on a comparison of the transaction history with the transaction data for the proposed payment transaction;
using the generated one or more transactional metrics, generating, by the processor of the processing server, the verified buyer for the buyer; and
transmitting, by a transmitter of the processing server, the authorization request to a second computing device for authorization when the generated verified buyer rating is above a predetermined threshold value or
transmitting, by the transmitter of the processing server, an authorization response declining the proposed payment transaction to the computing device when the verified buyer rating is below a predetermined threshold value.
The claim as a whole is directed to providing verified buyer ratings to sellers, which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity consistent with MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas [R-07.2022].
Additionally, the independent claims apply a machine learning algorithm.
The noted use of machine learning can be construed as a mathematical prediction, which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. As explained in the MPEP, when a claim recites multiple abstract ideas that fall in the same or different groupings, examiners should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea, rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B.
**BOLDING above is used to designate aspects of the claim(s) that are being interpreted as additional elements and not part of the claimed abstraction.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application?)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims disclose at least the additional elements as set forth and BOLDED above.
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
In this instance, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, 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.
Step 2B (Do the claim recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) then the recited judicial exception?)
Regarding the independent claims, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) (individually and in combination) are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefor the independent claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims
Subsequent dependent claims recite the abstract idea of:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
3. The method of claim 2,
4. The method of claim 2,
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the recommendation further includes at least one of the one or more transactional metrics.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the account profile further includes one or more additional data values associated with at least one of: the transaction account and an entity authorized for use of the transaction account, and the one or more transactional metrics are further based on the one or more additional values.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the one or more additional values includes at least one of: credit ratings, billing addresses, shipping addresses, names, marketplace ratings, marketplace feedback, dispute history, chargeback history, return history, and computing device data.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the processing server further includes a transmitter transmitting the generated verified buyer rating to the computing device in response to the received plurality of transaction values.
11. The system of claim 10,
12. The system of claim 10,
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the recommendation further includes at least one of the one or more transactional metrics.
15. The system of claim 9, wherein the account profile further includes one or more additional data values associated with at least one of: the transaction account and an entity authorized for use of the transaction account, and the one or more transactional metrics are further based on the one or more additional values.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more additional values includes at least one of: credit ratings, billing addresses, shipping addresses, names, marketplace ratings, marketplace feedback, dispute history, chargeback history, return history, and computing device data.
19. The method of claim 17,
22. The system of claim 20,
These dependent claims merely further limit the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-22 are thereby considered to be ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW S GART whose telephone number is (571)272-3955. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Tariq Hafiz, can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights