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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 11-15 are directed to an apparatus. Claims 16-20 are directed to a computer program product. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Claim 1 sets forth the following limitations which recite the abstract idea of providing merchant information:
receiving a set of transaction data elements, wherein the set of transaction data elements includes an indication of a payment type or a merchant;
deriving a set of merchant data elements from the set of transaction data elements;
receiving one or more payment accessibility parameters from a user;
comparing the one or more payment accessibility parameters to the set of merchant data elements to identify one or more compliant merchants, wherein the one or more compliant merchants comply with the one or more payment accessibility parameters; and
performing, based on the one or more compliant merchants, an action.
The recited limitations as a whole set forth the process for providing merchant information. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions (e.g. advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors).
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that claim 1 does recite additional elements, such as communications hardware, a personalization engine, notification circuitry, etc.
Taken individually and as a whole, claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim merely includes instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, while the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: MPEP 2106).
Step 2B:
When taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer device to perform the receiving and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Certain additional elements also recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-10 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the process for providing merchant information. Thus, each of claims 2-10 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and only generally link the abstract idea to a particularly technological environment, and applied on a generic computer. Further, the additional limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer, another technology, or a technical field.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2A/2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Regarding independent claims 11 (apparatus) and 16 (computer program product), the claim recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claims 11 and 16 and their dependent claims 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sardari et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0078555 A1) (“Sardari”).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 16, Sardari teaches a method (and related apparatus and program product) for personalizing a merchant identifier, the method comprising:
receiving, by communications hardware, a set of transaction data elements, wherein the set of transaction data elements includes an indication of a payment type or a merchant (Fig. 1; para [0035], payment service computing platform 112 may receive, from the merchant computing devices 114, merchant transaction data 130 associated with the merchants);
deriving, by a personalization engine, a set of merchant data elements from the set of transaction data elements (para [0035], a portion of this transaction data 128, 130 may be associated with any suitable “entity” that is searchable on the platform);
receiving, by the communications hardware, one or more payment accessibility parameters from a user (para [0048], payment instrument data indicating payment instrument used (e.g., debit, credit, single-use));
comparing, by the personalization engine, the one or more payment accessibility parameters to the set of merchant data elements to identify one or more compliant merchants, wherein the one or more compliant merchants comply with the one or more payment accessibility parameters (Fig. 6; para [0080], payment instrument data indicating payment instrument used; para [0082], list 308 of entities may be generated based at least in part on the transaction data); and
performing, by a notification circuitry and based on the one or more compliant merchants, an action (Fig. 6; para [0084], user interface 302 of the payment application 106 may be caused to present at least a portion of the list 308 of entities as a search result 124 to the search query).
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 17, Sardari teaches the above method, apparatus and product of claims 1, 11 and 16. Sardari also teaches wherein deriving the set of merchant data elements comprises: identifying, by the personalization engine, a payment trend, wherein the payment trend describes a particular merchant associated with the payment type (para [0080], payments received by the individual merchants 110 over a period of time (e.g., the past 180 days), payment instrument used (e.g., debit, credit, single-use)).
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 18, Sardari teaches the above method, apparatus and product of claims 2, 12 and 17. Sardari also teaches wherein in an instance in which the payment trend indicates a payment deviation:
transmitting, by the communications hardware, a payment trend confirmation request, wherein the payment trend confirmation request confirms or rejects the payment deviation (para [0087], risk metrics associated with searchable entities (e.g., merchants 110, items, etc.) are determined based on transaction data...rules-based approach may be used to determine the risk metrics. In some examples, entities, such as merchants 110, may be classified as high risk, medium risk, or low risk); and
receiving, by the communications hardware, the payment trend confirmation request, wherein the payment trend confirmation request is used to determine the payment trend (para [0087], Any of the signals, and/or data used to generate the signals, described with reference to FIG. 2 , above, may be used to determine the risk metrics (e.g., merchant risk metrics).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 19, Sardari teaches the above method, apparatus and product of claims 2, 12 and 17. Sardari also teaches wherein identifying the payment trend comprises:
determining, by the personalization engine and based on the set of merchant data elements, a merchant trend parameter (para [0082], process 600 may include accessing and analyzing a first portion of the transaction data 128 associated with the user...machine-trained model(s) 134 to analyze the first portion of the transaction data 128 associated with the user); and
applying, by the personalization engine, a trend identification model, wherein the trend identification model uses the merchant trend parameter to identify the payment trend (para [0082], machine-trained model(s) 134 to analyze the first portion of the transaction data 128 associated with the user...ranking at block 612 can be based on user data (e.g., user transaction data 128) and on merchant data (e.g., merchant transaction data 130), which may be accessed by the payment service computing platform).
Regarding claim 5, Sardari teaches the above method of claim 1. Sardari also teaches wherein in an instance in which the set of merchant data elements does not comprise the one or more compliant merchants: identifying, by the personalization engine, a supplemental payment device, wherein the supplemental payment device performs a transaction (Fig. 9; para [0108], merchant device 908 can have an instance of a POS application 918 stored thereon. The POS application 918 can configure the merchant device 908 as a POS terminal, which enables the merchant 916(A) to interact with one or more customers).
Regarding claim 6, Sardari teaches the above method of claim 5. Sardari also teaches wherein performing the transaction comprises: transmitting, by the communications hardware, a supplemental payment device instruction to the user and to the supplemental payment device (Fig. 9; para [0108], merchant device 908 can have an instance of a POS application 918 stored thereon. The POS application 918 can configure the merchant device 908 as a POS terminal, which enables the merchant 916(A) to interact with one or more customers).
Regarding claim 7, Sardari teaches the above method of claim 1. Sardari also teaches further comprising: generating, by the notification circuitry and based on the set of merchant data elements, a geofence, wherein one or more merchants are included in the geofence (para [0209], location of the user can be used by the service provider 612, described above, to provide one or more services. That is, in some examples, the service provider 612 can implement geofencing to provide particular services to users).
Regarding claim 8, Sardari teaches the above method of claim 7. Sardari also teaches further comprising: in an instance in which the geofence is violated:
receiving, by the communications hardware, a geofence notification, wherein the geofence notification indicates the user (para [0209], location of the user can be used by the service provider 612, described above, to provide one or more services. That is, in some examples, the service provider 612 can implement geofencing to provide particular services to users);
retrieving, by the personalization engine, a user profile, wherein the user profile is associated with the user (para [0043], profile data (e.g., user profile data, merchant profile data, etc.)); and
transmitting, by the communications hardware and based on the user profile, a geofence personalized payment notification, wherein performing the action comprises transmitting the geofence personalized payment notification (para [0209], geofencing…location can be used for taking payments from nearby customers when they leave a geofence, or location can be used to initiate an action responsive to users 614 enter a brick-and-mortar store of a merchant).
Regarding claims 9, 15 and 20, Sardari teaches the above method, apparatus and product of claims 1, 11 and 16. Sardari also teaches wherein performing the action comprises:
generating, by the notification circuitry, a personalized payment graphic, wherein the personalized payment graphic illustrates the one or more compliant merchants (Fig. 6; para [0084], user interface 302 of the payment application 106 may be caused to present at least a portion of the list 308 of entities as a search result 124 to the search query); and
causing, by the notification circuitry, presentation of the personalized payment graphic to the user (Fig. 5, 6; para [0084]).
Regarding claim 10, Sardari teaches the above method of claim 1. Sardari also teaches wherein identifying the one or more compliant merchants comprises: receiving, by the communications hardware, event data, wherein the event data alters the one or more compliant merchants (para [0027], payment service computing platform may be configured to monitor for a cue(s)/event(s) (e.g., receiving updated transaction data associated with a user) before executing the machine-trained model(s) to determine a risk metric associated with the user).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND LOHARIKAR whose telephone number is 571-272-8756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am – 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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANAND LOHARIKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689