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, 3-4, 6-8, 11, 14, 16-17, 19 and 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim operations cannot be reasonably performed as a mental process and necessitate the use of specialized computing resources.
The Office asserts that the claims were not rejected as a mental process but as a fundamental practice of mitigating risk, a method of organizing human activity. AS the applicant also argues the claims necessitate the use of specialized computing resources, however, the Office notes that the claims recite generic computer elements and not specialized computing resources. Additionally, the claims do not necessitate the use of computing resources so much as use computing resources as a tool for implementing the abstract idea.
Applicant argues the claims are more than the abstract idea of validating a payment recipient but rather a particular computer-implemented process for preemptively validating target account data.
The Office asserts that the particular limitations cited by the applicant comprise comparing inputs with retrieved data to determine a degree of correspondence, transforming the result of the degree of correspondence into a score and presenting a pop-up window with instructional information corresponding to the validation.
The claims do not recite any particular or inventive method for determining the degree of correspondence, the transformation or the presentation. The claims merely represent a comparison process, data manipulation and presentation, all performed by generic computer elements.
The applicant argues the claims address a problem arising in computerized payment systems, initiating payment to a target that is physically unverifiable before completion of the payment.
The Office asserts that the claimed technical problem is a business concern not limited by technical inability so much as financial and efficiency concerns. The claims do not address any particular technical inabilities as they employ generic computer elements in no particular or unconventional arrangement and the determining of the degree of correspondence and transformation steps are vaguely recited such that they do not comprise any particular or unconventional methods.
The applicant argues Desjardins is instructive because software-based and machine learning claims may reflect technological improvements based on a specific structure or process that addresses a technological problem and that the Office has not addressed the ordered combination.
The Office asserts, as above, that the problem is business concern and not a technical one and that the claims do not recite a specific structure or process. Regarding the ordered combination, it is unclear what particular combination of elements connotes eligibility.
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, 3, 4, 6-8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 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, for display on an endpoint device of a user, a platform that enables payment initiation through a server;
receive, through the platform on the endpoint device, a first input associated with target account data;
receive, through the platform on the endpoint device, a second input associated with target account data, wherein the target account data is associated with a target beneficiary that is physically unverifiable by the user prior to the payment;
transmit, via an application programming interface (API) , from the endpoint device to the server, the first input and the second input;
upon receiving the first input and the second input, enable selection of an
activatable element associated with the API;
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
determining a degree of correspondence between the first input, the second input, and the retrieved information;
generate, using a machine learning algorithm, a transformed result based on the degree of correspondence, wherein the transformed result includes a single overall score representing a probability that the target account corresponds to an intended target account;
transmit, via the API, the transformed result for presentation at the endpoint device; and
cause presentation of a pop-up window on the endpoint device prior to completion of the payment, wherein the pop-up window provides instructional information corresponding to the validation of the first input and the second input.
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, server 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 14 are similarly rejected.
Claim 3, 4, 11, 16 and 17 recite the presentation of information, the result of the validation, narrowing the abstract idea
Claims 6, 7, 19 and 20 recite an indexed repository, adding to the computer implementation of the claims with further generic elements.
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
Prosecution Insights