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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 15-20 are new. Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 12, and 14 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are similar to those of example 37 of USPTO guidance and recite technological limitations that go beyond mental processes or organizing human activity. The claim recites “transform the lookup analysis using the machine learning algorithm into a transformed result…” and incorporates steps beyond organizing human activity that demonstrates the specific technical limitations necessary for producing the transformed result and rendering the claims patent eligible.
The Office asserts that the limitation in question does not provide steps/details for producing the transformed result beyond “using machine learning”. As such the machine learning is essentially a black box, where the only steps are to provide information and receive a result. What happens in between is unknown and is a clear example of using computers as a tool, i.e., adding the words “Apply it”, or the like, to the abstract idea.
Applicant argues the lookup analysis is a technologically intensive task but provides no details or further explanation explaining the technological operations used other than to recite the use of machine learning. Again, this is an example using computers as a tool to implement an abstract idea.
Applicant argues the proposed limitations improve the mobile banking industry…which provides a practical application to any alleged abstract idea.
The Office asserts that such abroad assertion is unconvincing. To assert that the limitations improve the entire mobile banking industry fails to inform the Office about the particularities of the asserted improvements.
Applicant argues the claims provide a technological solution to a technological problem as they address deficiencies of conventional mobile banking services which fail to provide adequate confirmation that the target account…is the desired target account.
The Office asserts that neither the claims nor the specification describe or define what is considered “adequate” confirmation, therefore this argument is unconvincing.
Applicant argues the claims recite improvements similar to Example 42 and Bascom using the same arguments as above which are similarly unconvincing.
Applicant’s’ arguments regarding the 103 rejections have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the examiner has not shown a prima facie case of obviousness because one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to combine the references from disparate arts to form the applicant’s invention.
The Office asserts that Forman and Hugley are cited for their disclosure of a pop-up window and its’ function. One of ordinary skill would be motivated at various arts for notification technologies and therefore the combination is valid.
Applicant argues Yamane does not disclose a lookup analysis…based on the first input and the second input with a dataset stored in the server.
The Office asserts that Yamane discloses in 0057 that the verification system may have account data in a ledger or database…
Applicant argues Yamane does not disclose using machine learning.
The Office asserts that machine learning is old and well-known and that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine machine learning with the cited art to improve speed and efficiency. For example, Suermondt (2003/0018658), para. 0035, discloses that machine learning is well known.
As a result, the Office may modify the existing rejections to include Suermondt.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
A system for validating target account data, the system comprising:
A memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to:
generate a platform that enables payment initiation through a server;
receive, through the platform, a first input associated with target account data;
receive, through the platform, a second input associated with target account data;
wherein the target account data is associated with a physically unverifiable target beneficiary;
upon receipt of the first input and the second input, enable selection of an
activatable element;
in response to selection of the activatable element, perform a lookup
associated with the first input and the second input, to validate the first input and
the second input,
wherein the lookup comprises:
retrieving information corresponding to the first input and the second input from a dataset stored in the server; and generating a lookup analysis using a machine learning algorithm based on the retrieved information;
transform the lookup analysis using the machine learning algorithm into a
transformed result;
wherein the transformed result indicates a verification probability of the target beneficiary based on the lookup analysis; and
present the transformed result.
The underlined portion of the claims represent certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices of mitigating risk, because the claims are directed to validating the recipient of a payment.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim adds. The claims include a system for performing the abstract idea including a memory, processor, a platform, an activatable element and machine learning, all of which are generically recited such that they cannot be considered particular machines, effect a transformation (other than data), reflect an improvement in the computer or technology or apply the abstract idea in some other meaningful way. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the reasons cited above.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and in combination and as a whole, comprise the abstract idea and the words “apply it”, the like.
Claims 8, 10, 12, 14 and their dependents are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane and further in view of Forman (2002/0154141), Hugley (2003/0144997) and Suermondt (2003/0018658).
Yamane discloses:
12. A system for validating target account data, the system comprising:
A memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the stored instructions (0004) to:
generate a platform that enables repetitive payment initiation through a server (0052, Referring to FIG. SA, after the payment solicitation 400/450 is received, an example user/graphical interface 500 may be used to submit a payment request to the service provider system 110, according to potential embodiments. Interface 500 may be presented by, for example, a client application 138 running on the user device 130, or a website of the service provider that is accessed via a browser running on the user device 130.);
receive, through the platform, a first input associated with target account data (0052, Interface 500 allows the user to identify a destination account at 505 by entering a routing number and account number);
receive, through the platform, a second input associated with target account data (0052, identify a name (and address or other data) of the intended beneficiary at 510);
wherein the target account data is associated with a physically unverifiable target beneficiary (Yamane is directed to the use of electronic communications and payments, 0002, suggesting that the recipient is remote and cannot be physically verified);
enable selection of an activatable element (0054, Following selection of the next icon 525);
in response to selection of the activatable element, perform a lookup
associated with the first input and the second input, to validate the first input and the second input (0055, The service provider system 110 (and/or the user
device 130 in other potential implementations), once data on the payment
request has been entered/received, validates the information. 0057, at 610, the service provider system 110 may transmit a validation request (via, e.g., an API call) to validate the account via the verification system 180. If step 610 occurs before the payee name has been entered by the user, the verification system 180 may be used to discover what account owner is associated with the account. For example, the verification system 180 may have account data 182 (in a ledger, database, etc.) with a list of account numbers and owners, and the verification system 180 may accept an account number from the service provider system 110 and, at 615, return to the service provider system 110 a response identifying the owner or other entity associated with the account/account number.),
wherein the lookup comprises:
retrieving information corresponding to the first input and the second input from a dataset stored in the server (0057, For example, the verification system 180 may have account data 182 (in a ledger, database, etc.) with a list of account numbers and owners, and the verification system 180 may accept an account number from the service provider system 110 and, at 615, return to the service provider system 110 a response identifying the owner or other entity associated with the account/account number. The payee name, once received from the user at 620, may be compared with the owner or other entity identified in the response from the verification system 180 to validate the account number.); and generating a lookup analysis [using a machine learning algorithm] based on the retrieved information (0055, validates the information);
present the lookup analysis (0055, The service provider system 110 may transmit to the user device 130 a message or other indication that there is an error. When such a message/indication is received, interface 550 may present an alert 580 to caution the user about the payment request.).
Yamane does not disclose:
Using a machine learning algorithm
However, machine learning algorithms are old and well known per Suermondt (0035).
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the presentation of a pop-up window on a user device upon presentation of the lookup analysis;
wherein the pop-up window is displayed on the user device until a user accepts the result.
However, alerts implemented as pop-ups are known per Forman ([0031] Again, a known manner pop-up window can alert the user to the options.)
Hugley discloses:
(0022) The pop-up dialog box or web site may be operable to close upon receiving user input, e.g., when the user clicks on an "accept" or "go-away" button.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to implement the alert as a pop-up as it is a known method of presenting information on computer screens. Closing the pop-up window would be an obvious user convenience and to perform the lookup analysis using machine learning for speed and efficiency.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the result includes a no-result (0055, The service
provider system 110 may transmit to the user device 130 a message or other indication that there is an error…The message/indication may be transmitted if, for example, no response was received from the beneficiary system 150 and/or from the verification system 180).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the result" in the last clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694