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 Claims 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 18 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The 112 and 103 rejections are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims recite a technological implementation directed to a technical solution and integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Office asserts that per MPEP 2106.05(a), An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.
Using the above guidance the Office asserts that claims directed toward a technical solution is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as there also must be evidence of a technical problem. The claims are directed toward validating a target (payee) account. There is no evidence that this is a technical problem. Additionally, a practical application may be realized by identifying technical improvements over the prior art. Here the applicant merely asserts that the prior art does not validate target/payee accounts, not that it improves upon target/payee account validation. With regard to the prior art, several references indicate that validating target/payee accounts is known, therefore applicant’s arguments are unconvincing. See Fote (2012/0259781) para. 0058, Garrett (2005/0222952) para. 0033, and Shanmugan (2017/0316475) para. 0127.
Applicant argues the claims are consistent with Ex Parte Desjardins which improved how the machine learning model operated.
The Office asserts that the applicant fails to correlate the claimed invention with the improved machine learning model of Desjardins, i.e., how are the claims/reasoning similar beyond the bare assertion.
Applicant argues Example 42 of the Office guidance is instructive regarding the present claims as the present claims recite an improvement by requiring server-side lookup and validate account data regardless of the format of the data.
The office asserts that Example 42 is directed to standardizing data format but the present claims are not and do not include limitations directed to standardizing data format for remote users, therefore this argument is unpersuasive.
The applicant argues that Bascom is instructive.
The Office asserts that the claims do not recite any particular arrangement of components similar to Bascom, thus the argument is unpersuasive.
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;
transmitting. 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 words "apply it", or the like, to the abstract idea. 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, 10, 12, 14 and their dependents are similarly rejected.
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 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