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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received June 24, 2026. No Claim(s) have been canceled. Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Priority
Application No. 18,607,184 Filing date or 371(c) date: 03/15/2024
Applicant Name/Assignee: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Inventor(s): Urich, Shelli; Strader, Matthew
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues the limitations “authenticating…a user”, “determining …actions”, “determining list of accounts”, “receiving …an image”, “extracting …characters”, “determining accounts …permitted to perform actions”, “initiating …request”, “receiving…data” and “displaying…information” and “accounts” cannot reasonable be performed using mental concepts. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim subject matter, except for the limitations “displaying… information” and “displaying…accounts”, nothing precludes the limitations “authenticating…a user”, “determining …actions”, “determining list of accounts”, “receiving …an image”, “extracting …characters”, “determining accounts …permitted to perform actions”, “initiating …request”, “receiving…data” from being performed using mental processes. The human mind through observation can perform the limitations “receiving…image”, “receiving …data”, “extracting…characters”. The human mind through analysis and decision can perform the limitations “authenticating…a user”, “determining …actions”, “determining list of accounts”, “determining accounts …permitted to perform actions”, “initiating …request”. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that under step 2A prong 2, the claimed subject matter integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant recites the limitations arguing that the role-based permissions as claimed ensure data being viewed and handled only by authorized users increasing data security. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s argument in light of the specification are not directed toward indications of patent eligibility under step 2A prong 2, but instead to improve upon the identified abstract idea. Applying role-based permissions associated with authorized users is an abstract concept and does not change or improve upon any underlying technology. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues the claims provide the user on the resource a subset of a list of accounts which the user is authorized to interact based on identifier and specific product. Applicant argues that these requirements confine any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues the limitations allow permission/actions users to view/interact with accounts without having to search for or identify accounts. Applicants is arguing the abstract idea and not the technology as claimed an how the technology integrates the judicial exception. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that the claimed limitations provide a technical solution to a technical problem pointing the specification para 0027, para 0032 which describes mobile device resource examine user financial accounts linked with user account to determine which user accounts the user can make payments on behalf of. Applicant is arguing a financial activity not technology. Except for nominally mentioning a mobile device applied for performing the abstract idea without any technical process. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that under step 2B, the claimed subject matter is patent eligible. Applicant argues the claim recites additional elements which provide significantly more than any alleged abstract idea because the claims confine a solution of limiting allowable actions users are able to perform based on a role or permissions for the user. Applicant arguments focus on the abstract idea and not significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Applicant does not mention the additional elements beyond the abstract idea “limiting allowable actions users are able to perform based on a role or permissions for the user” which is a method of controlling human behavior. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art reference Hammad fails to teach “a specific product has an associated loan held by a provider, the loan issued for the specific product”. The examiner agrees that Hammad does not teach a specific product has an associated loan, however Hammad does teach applying credit for purchase for a specific product. The deficit in the teaching of Hammad is the credit of Hammad is not issued for the specific product as the credit is pre-existing and applied. Accordingly the 102 rejection is withdrawn. However under 103, the combination of Hammad and Vintila where Vintilla teaches in at least Fig. 26A-C; para 0317-0320, which teaches issuing a loan for a specific purchase. Accordingly the combination of the prior art Hammad and Vintilla teaches the argued limitation. .
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 instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claim(s) 1-10:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 5 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 1 recites a method steps (1) authenticating a user (2) determining a set of allowable actions (3) determining a list of accounts (4) receiving an image (5) extracting characters (6) determining one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform …actions on the product (7) initiating a request (8) receiving data (9) displaying information related to data corresponds to product (10) displaying accounts. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic resource of a mobile device. The claimed physical structures (resource of a mobile device) are generic computer components and tools to perform the mental processes. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates functions that could reasonable be performed using mental concepts, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
The steps recite steps that can easily be performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps (1) authenticating, (2) and (3) determining, (6) initiating mimic mental concept of analysis and decision; while the steps of (4) and (7) receiving; (5) extracting which mimics mental processes of observation. Accordingly, the limitations, mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation and decision, and whereas the displaying is mere communication of result which, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLl Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
The specification titled “Data Capture and Loan Payoff through Smartphone” discloses in the background that conventionally, a person paying off a loan may do so by submitting a payment via an online banking portal and that the systems, methods and devices are for initiating a loan payoff (¶ 0002-0003). The specification discloses that user allowable action include receiving information relating to products, initiating dispute, staging payment, transfer of funds and executing payments (¶ 0005, 0009)
Therefore, in light of the specification and the corresponding language of the claim limitations, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction process where a user is authenticated for accessing the resource (“any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be an application
installed on the user device” [¶ 0039] ) of the mobile device and then determining allowable action of the user and the list of accounts of the user where in response to receiving an identifier receiving data in response to a request and outputting the data corresponding to a process with a set of permittable allowable actions (e.g. receiving information relating to products, initiating dispute, staging payment, transfer of funds and executing payments). Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales and commercial activities/interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “resource of a mobile device” and “resource form the server”. The specification discloses the “resource” to be an “application” (para 0032) or “may be or include any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be an application installed on the user device 110. In some embodiments, the resource 140 may be a mobile banking application for a financial institution” (para 0039)
The claimed “resource of a mobile device” to perform the operations “receiving…an image”, “extracting …characters”, “displaying…information correspond to the product” and “displaying accounts”” and the “resource from the server” to perform the operation “receiving …data”. These operations which according to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition)
The claim limitations (receiving, extracting and displaying) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element “resource of a mobile device” applied to perform the operations “authenticating”, “determining…a set of allowable actions”, “determining…a list of accounts”, “determining …one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform…actions”, “initiating…a request”, where the operations are not directed toward technology but rather a transaction and commercial activity.
The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “resource” of a mobile device. The functions of the resource of the mobile device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure how the functions of the resource of the mobile device performs the operations. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the method at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application) or any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1 and 2-7 are directed toward authenticating the user to access an application on a mobile device which is applied for initiating a financial activity request based on the determined allowable actions of the user, determined list of accounts of the user and the received user identifier that is extracted and determining list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform actions on the product– which is a process directed toward risk mitigation and a financial activity. The combination of limitations 1-7 and 8-10 is directed toward receiving data responsive to request of limitations 1-7 and outputting information corresponding to the product and user permitted actions in the financial activity. Accordingly as a whole, the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction activity. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2.
MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. . This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements that go beyond applying technology as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of displaying information related to data corresponding to a product which includes allowable actions of the user to perform which is a process directed toward a financial activity.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The limitations do not recite a specific use machine or the transformation of an article to a different state or thing. The limitations do not provide other meaningful limits beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The resource claimed performing the steps is merely a “field of use” application of technology. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform a financial activity and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the operations performed by the “resource”. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea
STEP 2B; The additional elements recited in the claim are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements include a “resource” of a mobile device. The specification discloses the “resource 140 may be or include any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be an application installed on the user device 110. In some embodiments, the resource 140 may be a mobile banking application for a financial institution.“ (¶ 0039).
Taking the claim limitations separately, the function performed by the “resource” at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a mobile device “resource” as described in the specification and claim limitations “authenticating”, “determining”, “receiving”, “extracting”, “initiating …request” and “displaying”----are some of the most basic functions of such commerce applications. Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or requiring no more than a generic computer (mobile device) to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. As a result, none of the hardware or corresponding software as recited by the method claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers... .
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “authenticating”, “determining”, “receiving”, “extracting”, “initiating …request” and “displaying”----... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of authenticating, determining, receiving, extracting, initiating, receiving and displaying is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
Specification:
[0038] FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system 100 for initiating a quick loan payoff, according to an
example embodiment. The system 100 may include a user device 110. The user device 110 may
be or include any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be handled
or used by an end user. In some embodiments, the user device 110 may be a mobile phone and/or
a smartphone.
[0039] The user device 110 may include a resource 140. The resource 140 may be or include
any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be an application
installed on the user device 110. In some embodiments, the resource 140 may be a mobile
banking application for a financial institution. A user can use their user credentials to access the
resource 140. The resource 140 can authenticate the user based on the user credentials. In some
embodiments, a server 160 hosting the resource 140 executing on (or provisioned to) the user
device 110 authenticates the user credentials. For example, the resource 140 may be configured
to receive log-in credentials of the user, and transmit the log-in credentials of the user to the
server 160. An account manager 130 of the server 160 (described in greater detail below) may
be configured to access a user profile corresponding to the log-in credentials, and determine whether the log-in credentials received from the resource 140 match the log-in credentials of the
user profile. In some embodiments, the server 160 may use multi-factor authentication to
authenticate the user to access the resource 140. Such multi-factor authentication may include,
for example, push notifications, biometric authentication, username and password combinations,
and so forth.
[0040] In various embodiments, the resource 140 may include, execute on, or otherwise be
provisioned by a server 160. The server 160 may be or include any device, component, element,
or hardware designed or configured to enable an interaction between a user of the device 110 and
data of the resource 140. In some embodiments, the server 160 may provide functionality and
communication capabilities for the resource 140. For example, the resource 140 may be hosted
on, executed on, and/or provisioned by the server 160 to the device 110.
[0041] In various embodiments, the server 160 and/or user devices 110 may include
respective processor circuits(s) 120. The processing circuit(s) 120 may be or include any device,
component, element, or hardware designed or configured to execute actions or processes. For
example, the processing circuit(s) 120 may be configured to execute, support, provision, or
otherwise provide the resource 140. In some embodiments, the processing circuit(s) 120 may
include one or more processor(s) 122 and memory 124. The processor(s) 122 may be or include
a field programmable gate array (FPGA), application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a logic
circuit, etc. The memory 124 may include random access memory (RAM), flash memory, read
only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable
programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), registers, a hard disk, a removable disk, a CDROM,
or any device capable for storing data. The memory 124 may be embodied as a nontransitory
computer readable medium storing instructions executable by the processor 122 to
perform various functions of the device 110 / remote server 160 disclosed herein. In some
embodiments, the memory 124 and the processor 122 are integrated as a single component. The
processing engine(s) 126 may be or include any device, component, element, or hardware
designed or configured to perform certain dedicated functions of the processing circuit 120, the server 160, and/or the user device 110. For example, the processing engine(s) 126 may include a
10 permission engine 128, an account manager 130, a data capture engine 132, and a graphical user
interface engine 134. The processing engine(s) 126 may enable the functions of the permission
engine 128, the account manager 130, the data capture engine 132, and the graphical user
interface engine 134. The permission engine 128, the account manager 130, the data capture engine 132, and the graphical user interface engine 134 are described in greater detail herein.
[0042] In various embodiments, the processing engine(s) 126 may include a permission
engine 128. The permission engine 128 may or be or include any device, component, element, or
hardware designed or configured to determine a set of allowable actions the user can take within
the resource 140….
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-10 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward the allowable actions of a user in a financial activity. Dependent claim 3 is directed toward describing the identifier as an identifier of any of a plurality of commercial or financial identifiers – a financial activity and non-functional descriptive subject matter. Dependent claim 4 is directed toward limiting information to financial account elements- financial activity. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward receiving a selection of allowable actions and performing an action according to a selection- a financial activity. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward executing a payment- a financial activity. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward staging a payment – a financial activity. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward limiting the identifier to a PO number or billing of lading and initiating a dispute- a financial activity. Dependent 9 is directed toward determining a first count of products corresponding to PO, receiving second count of received products and transmitting data- a financial/transaction activity. Dependent claim 10 is directed toward receiving a notification- insignificant extra solution activity.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-10 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claim(s) 11-19:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a server, as in independent Claim 11 and the dependent claims. Such servers fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Server claim 11 recites operational functions (1) receive a user log (2) transmit authentication (3) retrieve information (4) transmit information (5) receive characters (6) transmits one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform actions on the product (7) receive a request (8) transmit data . The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic server comprising processors. The claimed physical structures are generic computer components and tools to perform the mental processes. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates functions that could reasonable be performed using mental concepts, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
The steps recite steps that can easily be performed in the human mind as mental processes because the operations (1) receive (3) retrieve, (5) receive (7) receive mimic mental concept of observation; while the operations of (2) transmit, (4) transmit (6) transmit and (8) transmit is mere communication of results/data. Accordingly, the limitations, mimic human thought processes of observation, and whereas the transmit limitations are mere communication of data/result which, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLl Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
The specification titled “Data Capture and Loan Payoff through Smartphone” discloses in the background that conventionally, a person paying off a loan may do so by submitting a payment via an online banking portal and that the systems, methods and devices are for initiating a loan payoff (¶ 0002-0003). The specification discloses that user allowable action include receiving information relating to products, initiating dispute, staging payment, transfer of funds and executing payments (¶ 0005, 0009)
Therefore, in light of the specification and the corresponding language of the claim limitations, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction process where user is authenticated in a log in process, and user financial and access information is retrieved and transmitted. In response to receiving user identifier and request related to accounts, transmitting product data which is a financial/transaction activity. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales and commercial activities/interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a server comprising one or more processors.
The additional element “one or more processors” applied to perform the operations “receive…user log”, “transmit…authentication”, “retrieve information…performing lookup using …identifier”, “transmit…information”, “receive…characters”, “transmit…one or more accounts of the list”, “receive a request”, “transmit…data”, such operations (receive, transmit, retrieve) have been found insufficient. According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
The claim limitations (receive, transmit, retrieve) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include one or more “processors” of a server. The functions of the one or more processors are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure how the functions of the processor performs the operations. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the operations of the one or more processors at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application) or any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1-2 and 3-7 are directed toward authentication a user via a log on process and transmitting user information and product identifiers for receiving a request comprising the identifier and a list of account linked to the user- which is a financial/transaction activity. The combination of limitations 1-7 and 8 when considered as a whole, the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction activity. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2.
MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. . This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements that go beyond applying technology as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of authenticating user and using data received in response to request transmitting product data a process directed toward a financial activity.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The limitations do not recite a specific use machine or the transformation of an article to a different state or thing. The limitations do not provide other meaningful limits beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The “one or more processor” claimed performing the steps is merely a “field of use” application of technology. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The operations are still a combination made to perform a financial activity and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional elements only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the operations performed by the “one or more processors”. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea
STEP 2B; The additional elements recited in the claim are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements include a “one or more processors” of a server.
Taking the claim limitations separately, the function performed by the “one or more processors” at each operations of the process is purely conventional. Using “one or more processors” as described in the specification and claim limitations “receive”, “retrieve” and “transmit”----are some of the most basic functions of server processors. Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or requiring no more than a generic one or more processors of a server to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. As a result, none of the hardware or corresponding software as recited by the server claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the operations of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers... .
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “receive”, “retrieve” and “transmit”----... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of authenticating, determining, receiving, extracting, initiating, receiving and displaying is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
MPEP 2106.05(d) II (i) –
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
MPEP 2106.05(g)
Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:
Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)
Mere data gathering:
iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Specification:
[0038] FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system 100 for initiating a quick loan payoff, according to an
example embodiment. The system 100 may include a user device 110. The user device 110 may
be or include any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be handled
or used by an end user. In some embodiments, the user device 110 may be a mobile phone and/or
a smartphone.
[0041] In various embodiments, the server 160 and/or user devices 110 may include
respective processor circuits(s) 120. The processing circuit(s) 120 may be or include any device,
component, element, or hardware designed or configured to execute actions or processes. For
example, the processing circuit(s) 120 may be configured to execute, support, provision, or
otherwise provide the resource 140. In some embodiments, the processing circuit(s) 120 may
include one or more processor(s) 122 and memory 124. The processor(s) 122 may be or include
a field programmable gate array (FPGA), application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a logic
circuit, etc. The memory 124 may include random access memory (RAM), flash memory, read
only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable
programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), registers, a hard disk, a removable disk, a CDROM,
or any device capable for storing data. The memory 124 may be embodied as a nontransitory
computer readable medium storing instructions executable by the processor 122 to
perform various functions of the device 110 / remote server 160 disclosed herein. In some
embodiments, the memory 124 and the processor 122 are integrated as a single component. The
processing engine(s) 126 may be or include any device, component, element, or hardware
designed or configured to perform certain dedicated functions of the processing circuit 120, the server 160, and/or the user device 110. For example, the processing engine(s) 126 may include a
10 permission engine 128, an account manager 130, a data capture engine 132, and a graphical user
interface engine 134. The processing engine(s) 126 may enable the functions of the permission
engine 128, the account manager 130, the data capture engine 132, and the graphical user
interface engine 134. The permission engine 128, the account manager 130, the data capture engine 132, and the graphical user interface engine 134 are described in greater detail herein.
[0042] In various embodiments, the processing engine(s) 126 may include a permission
engine 128. The permission engine 128 may or be or include any device, component, element, or
hardware designed or configured to determine a set of allowable actions the user can take within
the resource 140….
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 12-19 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 11. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward the allowable actions of a user in a financial activity. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward describing the identifier as an identifier of any of a plurality of commercial or financial identifiers – a financial activity and non-functional descriptive subject matter. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward limiting information to financial account elements- financial activity. Dependent claim 15 is directed toward receive a selection of allowable actions and perform an action according to a selection- a financial activity. Dependent claim 16 is directed toward initiating transfer of funds- a financial activity. Dependent claim 17 is directed toward staging a payment – a financial activity. Dependent claim 18 is directed toward limiting the identifier to a PO number or billing of lading and initiating a dispute- a financial activity. Dependent 19 is directed toward determining a first count of products corresponding to PO, receiving second count of received products and transmitting data- a financial/transaction activity. Dependent claim 10 is directed toward receiving a notification- insignificant extra solution activity.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 11. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 12-19 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claim(s) 20:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a device, as in independent Claim 20. Such devices fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Device claim 20 recites a device operations (1) authenticate a user (2) determine a set of allowable actions (3) determine a list of accounts (4) extract characters (6) determine one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile (7) initiate a request (8) receive data (9) display information corresponds to product (10) display accounts The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic resource of a mobile device. The claimed physical structures (one or more processors of the device) are generic computer components and tools to perform the mental processes. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates functions that could reasonable be performed using mental concepts, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
The steps recite steps that can easily be performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps (1) authenticate, (2) and (3) determine, (5) determine (6) initiate mimic mental concept of analysis and decision; while the steps of (7) receive; (4) extract which mimics mental processes of observation. Accordingly, the limitations, mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation and decision, and whereas the display is mere communication of result which, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLl Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
The specification titled “Data Capture and Loan Payoff through Smartphone” discloses in the background that conventionally, a person paying off a loan may do so by submitting a payment via an online banking portal and that the systems, methods and devices are for initiating a loan payoff (¶ 0002-0003). The specification discloses that user allowable action include receiving information relating to products, initiating dispute, staging payment, transfer of funds and executing payments (¶ 0005, 0009)
Therefore, in light of the specification and the corresponding language of the claim limitations, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction process where a user is authenticated for accessing the device and then determining allowable action of the user and the list of accounts of the user where in response to receiving an identifier receiving data in response to a request and outputting the data corresponding to a process with a set of permittable allowable actions (e.g. receiving information relating to products, initiating dispute, staging payment, transfer of funds and executing payments). Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales and commercial activities/interactions. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The operations of device claim 20 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “one or more processor” of a device. The functions of the one or more processors of the device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure how the functions of the one or more processors of the device performs the operations. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the operations at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application) or any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1-2 and 3-4 are directed toward authenticating the user to access an application on a mobile device which is applied for initiating a financial activity request based on the determined allowable actions of the user, determined list of accounts of the user and the received user identifier that is extracted – which is a process directed toward risk mitigation and a financial activity. The combination of limitations 1-4 and 5-9 is directed toward receiving data responsive to request of limitations 1-4 and outputting information corresponding to the product and user permitted actions in the financial activity. Accordingly as a whole, the claimed subject matter is directed toward a transaction activity. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any of the indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2.
MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of operations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. . This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements that go beyond applying technology as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of displaying information related to data corresponding to a product which includes allowable actions of the user to perform which is a process directed toward a financial activity.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The limitations do not recite a specific use machine or the transformation of an article to a different state or thing. The limitations do not provide other meaningful limits beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The resource claimed performing the steps is merely a “field of use” application of technology. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform a financial activity and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified.
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the operations performed by the “one or more processors”. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea
STEP 2B; The additional elements recited in the claim are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements include a device comprising one or more processors.
Taking the claim limitations separately, the function performed by the “one or more processors” at each operation of the process is purely conventional. Using a “one or more processors” of a device as described in the specification and claim limitations “authenticate”, “determine”, “extract”, “initiate …request” and “display”----are some of the most basic functions of such commerce applications. Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or requiring no more than a generic computer (mobile device) to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. As a result, none of the hardware or corresponding software as recited by the device claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the device to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. .. .
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “authenticate”, “determine”, “extract”, “initiate …request” and “display”----... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each operations does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of authenticate, determine, extract, initiate, receive and displaying is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
Specification:
[0038] FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system 100 for initiating a quick loan payoff, according to an
example embodiment. The system 100 may include a user device 110. The user device 110 may
be or include any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be handled
or used by an end user. In some embodiments, the user device 110 may be a mobile phone and/or
a smartphone.
[0039] The user device 110 may include a resource 140. The resource 140 may be or include
any device, component, element, or hardware designed or configured to be an application
installed on the user device 110. In some embodiments, the resource 140 may be a mobile
banking application for a financial institution. A user can use their user credentials to access the
resource 140. The resource 140 can authenticate the user based on the user credentials. In some
embodiments, a server 160 hosting the resource 140 executing on (or provisioned to) the user
device 110 authenticates the user credentials. For example, the resource 140 may be configured
to receive log-in credentials of the user, and transmit the log-in credentials of the user to the
server 160. An account manager 130 of the server 160 (described in greater detail below) may
be configured to access a user profile corresponding to the log-in credentials, and determine whether the log-in credentials received from the resource 140 match the log-in credentials of the
user profile. In some embodiments, the server 160 may use multi-factor authentication to
authenticate the user to access the resource 140. Such multi-factor authentication may include,
for example, push notifications, biometric authentication, username and password combinations,
and so forth.
[0040] In various embodiments, the resource 140 may include, execute on, or otherwise be
provisioned by a server 160. The server 160 may be or include any device, component, element,
or hardware designed or configured to enable an interaction between a user of the device 110 and
data of the resource 140. In some embodiments, the server 160 may provide functionality and
communication capabilities for the resource 140. For example, the resource 140 may be hosted
on, executed on, and/or provisioned by the server 160 to the device 110.
[0041] In various embodiments, the server 160 and/or user devices 110 may include
respective processor circuits(s) 120. The processing circuit(s) 120 may be or include any device,
component, element, or hardware designed or configured to execute actions or processes. For
example, the processing circuit(s) 120 may be configured to execute, support, provision, or
otherwise provide the resource 140. In some embodiments, the processing circuit(s) 120 may
include one or more processor(s) 122 and memory 124. The processor(s) 122 may be or include
a field programmable gate array (FPGA), application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a logic
circuit, etc. The memory 124 may include random access memory (RAM), flash memory, read
only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable
programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), registers, a hard disk, a removable disk, a CDROM,
or any device capable for storing data. The memory 124 may be embodied as a nontransitory
computer readable medium storing instructions executable by the processor 122 to
perform various functions of the device 110 / remote server 160 disclosed herein. In some
embodiments, the memory 124 and the processor 122 are integrated as a single component. The
processing engine(s) 126 may be or include any device, component, element, or hardware
designed or configured to perform certain dedicated functions of the processing circuit 120, the server 160, and/or the user device 110. For example, the processing engine(s) 126 may include a
10 permission engine 128, an account manager 130, a data capture engine 132, and a graphical user
interface engine 134. The processing engine(s) 126 may enable the functions of the permission
engine 128, the account manager 130, the data capture engine 132, and the graphical user
interface engine 134. The permission engine 128, the account manager 130, the data capture engine 132, and the graphical user interface engine 134 are described in greater detail herein.
[0042] In various embodiments, the processing engine(s) 126 may include a permission
engine 128. The permission engine 128 may or be or include any device, component, element, or
hardware designed or configured to determine a set of allowable actions the user can take within
the resource 140….
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-13, 14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/082190 A1 by Hammad et al (Hammad), and further in view of CA 3007992 A1 by Vintila et al (Vintila)
In reference to Claim 1:
Hammad teaches:
(Currently Amended) A method ((Hammad) in at least para 0004), comprising:
authenticating, by a resource of a mobile device, a user for accessing the resource based on user credentials of the user ((Hammad) in at least para 0136);
determining, by the resource, according to a profile of the user associated with an entity,, a set of allowable actions to be taken by the user, wherein the set of allowable actions are defined by an account having administrator privileges ((Hammad) in at least para 0051-0053 wherein the prior art teaches TSGS allow users with appropriate permissions that are participating according to unique agent ID, para 0056-0057 wherein the prior art teaches TSGS allow users with appropriate permissions to create rules of authentication for permissions to actions, para 0076, para 0079-0083 wherein the prior art teaches user/wallet provider create new rule for all operators with appropriate permissions, para 0089 wherein the prior art teaches TSGS allow user permissions to define participation rules, para 0093, para 0115, para 0119-0121 wherein the prior art teaches a sanction check list for actions including allow, deny, challenge, device lockout, update allow/deny, card lockout allow/deny, purchase allow/deny, disable wallet allow/deny, para 0116, para 0135, para 0238);
determining, by the resource, a list of accounts linked to the profile of the user by performing a look-up using user identifier from the user profile, each account in the list of accounts associated with the entity ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 16, FIG. 17A-B; FIG. 17F wherein the prior art illustrates looking up account social channel based on user name in order to send/receive funds; FIG. 21A-B, FIG. 23; para 0063, para 0202 wherein the prior art teaches user query for accounts, para 0202 wherein the prior art teaches account database for user accounts, para 0235-0238, para 0245, para 0258 wherein the prior art teaches adding funding source associated with name and address of user; para 0260 wherein the prior art teaches user may activate interface to view/modify user name, user pin, user address, user social security number; para 0299 wherein the prior art teaches databased include several tables including users table including fields userID, ssn, dob, first and last name, para 0301);
receiving, by the resource, an image of an identifier corresponding to a specific product that has an associated loan held by a provider, …, the image captured by a camera of the mobile device wherein the identifier is a unique string of characters ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 16A ref # 1616; FIG. 17 re# 1717; para 0043 wherein the prior art teaches transaction request include product type and ID of transaction; para 0044 wherein the prior art teaches transaction data includes product category and quantity, para 0049-0050 wherein the prior art teaches purchase includes jewelry, electronic goods, para 0053, para 0132 wherein the prior art teaches scanning products barcode, QR code added to product to shopping cart, para 0135 wherein the prior art teaches scanning product barcode , snap a QR code, para 0197 wherein the prior art teaches payment processing include credit card payment; para 0138, para 0187, para 0189, para 0215 wherein the prior art teaches determining whether user has sufficient credit associated with the account; para 0220 wherein the prior art teaches command to add charge to user’s credit card account; para 0225, para 0229 wherein the prior art teaches displaying list of bills from merchants including last bill payment, auto-payment and teaches selecting items/products to add to purchase items ; para 0235 wherein the prior art teaches user select payment of credit cards where the user has the option of paying; para 0250-0252; wherein the prior art teaches searching bill and para 0258, may include payment processor to credit the amount as a credit card for funding source),
extracting, by the resource, characters from the image which correspond to the identifier by executing an optical character recognition (OCR) software package to extract the identifier from the image((Hammad) in at least para 0133, para 0134-0135, para 0138, para 0187-0188, para 0253, para 0320);
determining, by the resource, based on the specific product and the associated loan, one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform one or more allowable actions on the specific product ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 16, FIG. 17A-B; FIG. 17F wherein the prior art illustrates looking up account social channel based on user name in order to send/receive funds; FIG. 21A-B; para 0035-0036, para 0042- 0043 wherein the prior art teaches transaction request include product type and ID of transaction; para 0044 wherein the prior art teaches transaction data includes product category and quantity, para 0049-0050 wherein the prior art teaches purchase includes jewelry, electronic goods, para 0053, para 0051 wherein the prior art teaches applying rules to identify account ranges participating in a given market, para 0053-0054para 0132 wherein the prior art teaches scanning products barcode, QR code added to product to shopping cart, para 0135 wherein the prior art teaches scanning product barcode , snap a QR code, , para 0135, para 0196-0197, para 0202 wherein the prior art teaches user query for accounts, para 0235-0238, para 0245, para 0296)
initiating, by the resource, a request to a server, the request comprising i) the identifier and ii) information corresponding to the list of accounts linked to the profile ((Hammad) in at least Fig. 9 ref # 911 to 912 to 903a; FIG. 12A; FIG. 17A-B; para 0091, para 0133-0135, para 0187, para 0235-0238, para 0251-0254);
receiving, by the resource from the server, responsive to the request, data corresponding to the specific product, that has the associated loan ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 12A; FIG. 16A ref # 1616; FIG. 17 re# 1717; para 0051 wherein the prior art teaches applying rules to identify account ranges participating in a given market, para 0053-0054, para 0137, para 0188-0189, para 0197 wherein the prior art teaches payment processing include credit card payment; para 0215 wherein the prior art teaches determining whether user has sufficient credit associated with the account; para 0220 wherein the prior art teaches command to add charge to user’s credit card account; para 0225, para 0229 wherein the prior art teaches displaying list of bills from merchants including last bill payment, auto-payment and teaches selecting items/products to add to purchase items ; para 0235 wherein the prior art teaches user select payment of credit cards where the user has the option of paying; para 0250-0252; wherein the prior art teaches searching bill and para 0258, may include payment processor to credit the amount as a credit card for funding source,);
displaying, by the resource, information relating to the data from the server which corresponds to the specific product that has the associated loan, including the set of allowable actions permitted to be performed ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 9 ref # 917 to 902 to 918; FIG. 16A ref # 1616; FIG. 17 re# 1717, FIG. 17A-B, FIG. 19B-D; para 0051 wherein the prior art teaches applying rules to identify account ranges participating in a given market, para 0053-0054, para 0135-0136, para 0187, para 0191, para 0197 wherein the prior art teaches payment processing include credit card payment; para 0215 wherein the prior art teaches determining whether user has sufficient credit associated with the account, para 0207, para 0217, para 0235 wherein the prior art teaches user select payment of credit cards where the user has the option of paying; para 0250-0252; wherein the prior art teaches searching bill, para 0251-0253, para 0258, may include payment processor to credit the amount as a credit card for funding source); and
displaying, by the resource, one or more accounts of the list of accounts that the user can interact with based on the identifier and the specific product ((Hammad) in at least Fig. 9 and Fig. 15, Fig. 16a-f; wherein the prior art teaches checkout display displaying product barcode and display accounts to select; Fig. 17A-B, para 0187, para 0246)
Hammad does not explicitly teach:
…the loan issued for the specific product…
Vintila teaches:
the loan issued for the specific product.((Vintila) in at least Fig. 26A-C; para 0317-0320)
Both Hammad and Vintila teach applying a mobile commerce app for performing transactions with multiple payment options including credit for different transaction provided in the mobile app (resource). Hammad teaches purchasing on credit identified products with specific identifiers. Vintila teaches the motivation that such commerce options can include micro-loans with loan offers which include terms of the loan for individual processes that can be used to payoff funding sources and avoid accrual of interest of one or more other payment methods for purchase of specific products. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the credit card use for payments of identified products purchased of Hammad to include options for micro-loans as taught by Vintila since Vintila teaches the motivation that such commerce options can include micro-loans with loan offers which include terms of the loan for individual processes that can be used to payoff funding sources and avoid accrual of interest of one or more other payment methods
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the set of allowable actions comprise
at least one of receiving information relating to products, initiating a dispute, staging payments, or executing payments. ((Hammad) in at least para 0115, para 0123, para 0231, para 0247-0253)
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the identifier comprises
at least one of a vehicle identification number, a serial number, an inventory number, a purchase order number, or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading.((Hammad) in at least para 0135, para 0187, para 0190, para 0250, para 0253)
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4
(Currently Amended) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the information includes
Hammad suggest but does not explicitly teach:
a balance due associated with the loan against the product, loan terms of the loan, accrued interest, and an interest rate.
Vintila teaches:
a balance due associated with the loan against the product, loan terms of the loan, accrued interest, and an interest rate.((Vintila) in at least Fig. 26A-C; para 0317-0320)
According to KSR, common sense rationale, when the prior art provides some teaching, suggestion or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed invention. Both Hammad and Vintila teach applying for payment of a product credit payment selections. The specification discloses a balance due associated with a loan against a product, with loan terms of the loan, accrued interest and interest rate. Hammad teaches a loan/credit product which includes a credit for a balance due against a product. Although Hammad does not explicitly provide the details of the use of credit card with loan terms, accrued interest or interest rates such terms and conditions in credit card payment accounts is in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the details of billing of accounts for amounts due and applying credit from credit accounts as payment against amounts do would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed limitations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, according to KSR common sense rationale, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. The prior art reference Hammad differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of one credit/loan applied against a balance due on a product with another including the details of the terms of the credit/loan applied. The prior art Vintila provides evidence that the substitution of term “credit” for payment with the term “loan” are functions known in the art. The prior art Vintila further teaches that such financing includes details of the repayments for the balance due. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substation would have been predictable
Both Hammad and Vintila teach applying a mobile commerce app for performing transactions with multiple payment options including credit for different transaction provided in the mobile app (resource). Vintila teaches the motivation that such commerce options can include micro-loans with loan offers which include terms of the loan for individual processes that can be used to payoff funding sources and avoid accrual of interest of one or more other payment methods. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transactions options of a payment app of Hammad to include options for micro-loans as taught by Vintila since Vintila teaches the motivation that such commerce options can include micro-loans with loan offers which include terms of the loan for individual processes that can be used to payoff funding sources and avoid accrual of interest of one or more other payment methods
In reference to Claim 5:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
receiving, by the resource, a selection of an action from the set of allowable action ((Hammad) in at least para 0047, para 0135, para 0200, para 0227-0229, para 0231-0232, para 0235-0236); and
performing, by the resource, the action according to the selection. ((Hammad) in at least para 0047, para 0135, para 0227-0229, para 0231-0232, para 0231-0236)
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6
(Original) The method of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the action comprises
executing payment, wherein performing the action comprises initiating, by the resource, a transfer of funds from a first account, according to a payment amount indicated in the data corresponding to the product. ((Hammad) in at least para 0218-0220, para 0235-0237),
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7
(Original) The method of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the action comprises
staging payment, wherein performing the action comprises adding the identifier to a queue for executing payment for the product by a second user. ((Hammad) in at least para 0235-0237, para 0256 wherein the prior art teaches user adding offer code and finding merchants who accept offer code),
In reference to Claim 10:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 10
(Original) The method of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), further comprising:
receiving, by the resource, responsive to receiving the selection and performing the action, a notification indicating completion of the action ((Hammad) in at least para 0014, para 0018, para 0115, para 0135, para 0189).
In reference to Claim 11:
Hammad teaches:
(Currently Amended) A server ((Hammad) in at least para 0046-0047, para 0133) comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
receive, from of a resource of a mobile device, a user log in attempt via user credentials of the user, , the user associated with an entity ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 2E-2F; para 0136);
transmit an authentication of the user log in attempt to the resource ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 2F; para 0104-0109, para 0136);
retrieve information corresponding to a user profile of the user by performing a look-up using a user identifier from the user profile, wherein the information corresponding to the user profile of the user is at least one of a set of allowable actions to be taken by the user, wherein the set of allowable actions are defined by an account having administrator privileges, or a list of accounts linked to the profile of the user, each account in the list of accounts associated with entity ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 7 ref # 703-704, FIG. 16, FIG. 17A-B; FIG. 17F wherein the prior art illustrates looking up account social channel based on user name in order to send/receive funds; FIG. 21A-B; para 0051-0053 wherein the prior art teaches TSGS allow users with appropriate permissions that are participating according to unique agent ID, para 0076, para 0079-0083 wherein the prior art teaches user/wallet provider create new rule for all operators with appropriate permissions, para 0089 wherein the prior art teaches TSGS allow user permissions to define participation rules, para 0093, para 0099-0109, para 0115, para 0119-0121 wherein the prior art teaches a sanction check list for actions including allow, deny, challenge, device lockout, update allow/deny, card lockout allow/deny, purchase allow/deny, disable wallet allow/deny, para 0116, para 0135, para 0238, para 0215 wherein the prior art teaches determining whether user has sufficient credit associated with the account; para 0220 wherein the prior art teaches command to add charge to user’s credit card account; para 0225, para 0229 wherein the prior art teaches displaying list of bills from merchants including last bill payment, auto-payment and teaches selecting items/products to add to purchase items ; para 0235 wherein the prior art teaches user select payment of credit cards where the user has the option of paying; para 0250-0252; wherein the prior art teaches searching bill and par 0258, may include payment processor to credit the amount as a credit card for funding source);
transmit the information corresponding to the user profile of the user to the resource of the mobile device ((Hammad) in at least Fig. 8-9; para 0161 , para 0175, para 0188, para 0228-0230, para 0244);
receive, from the resource, characters that correspond to an identifier of a product, that has an associate loan held by a provider, …, wherein the identifier is a unique string of characters and wherein the characters are extracted from an image which corresponds to the identifier by executing an optical character recognition (OCR) software package to extract the identifier from the image ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 16, FIG. 17A-B; FIG. 17F wherein the prior art illustrates looking up account social channel based on user name in order to send/receive funds; FIG. 21A-B; para 0035-0036, para 0042, para 0043 wherein the prior art teaches transaction request include product type and ID of transaction; para 0044 wherein the prior art teaches transaction data includes product category and quantity, para 0049-0050 wherein the prior art teaches purchase includes jewelry, electronic goods, para 0051 wherein the prior art teaches applying rules to identify account ranges participating in a given market, para 0053-0054, para 0132 wherein the prior art teaches scanning products barcode, QR code added to product to shopping cart, para 0133-0135 wherein the prior art teaches scanning product barcode , snap a QR code, para 0138, para 0187-0188, para 0196-0197 wherein the prior art teaches payment processing include credit card payment, para 0202 wherein the prior art teaches user query for accounts, para 0215 wherein the prior art teaches determining whether user has sufficient credit associated with the account; para 0220 wherein the prior art teaches command to add charge to user’s credit card account; para 0229 wherein the prior art teaches displaying list of bills from merchants including last bill payment, auto-payment and teaches selecting items/products to add to purchase items , para 0225, para 0235-0238 wherein the prior art teaches user select payment of credit cards where the user has the option of paying, para 0245, para 0250-0253; wherein the prior art teaches searching bill and para 0258, may include payment processor to credit the amount as a credit card for funding source, para 0320);
transmit, to the resource, one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform one or more allowable actions on the specific product ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 16, FIG. 17A-B; FIG. 17F wherein the prior art illustrates looking up account social channel based on user name in order to send/receive funds; FIG. 21A-B; para 0035-0036, para 0042- 0043 wherein the prior art teaches transaction request include product type and ID of transaction; para 0044 wherein the prior art teaches transaction data includes product category and quantity, para 0049-0050 wherein the prior art teaches purchase includes jewelry, electronic goods, para 0053, para 0051 wherein the prior art teaches applying rules to identify account ranges participating in a given market, para 0053-0054, para 0063 wherein updates on accounts, para 0065 wherein send adding cards to wallet, para 0132 wherein the prior art teaches scanning products barcode, QR code added to product to shopping cart, para 0135 wherein the prior art teaches scanning product barcode , snap a QR code, , para 0135, para 0196-0197, para 0202 wherein the prior art teaches user query for accounts, para 0235-0238, para 0245, para 0296);
receive a request from the resource, the request comprising i) the identifier and ii) information corresponding to the list of accounts linked to the profile ((Hammad) in at least Fig. 9 ref # 911 to 912 to 903a; FIG. 12A; FIG. 17A-B; para 0091, para 0133-0135, para 0187, para 0235-0238, para 0251-0254); and
transmit, to the resource, responsive to the request, data corresponding to the specific product that has the associated loan. ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 9 ref # 917 to 902 to 918; FIG. 17A-B, FIG. 19B-D; para 0135-0136, para 0187, para 0191, transmit, to the resource, one or more accounts of the list of accounts linked to the profile associated with users permitted to perform one or more allowable actions on the product; para 0207, para 0215 wherein the prior art teaches determining whether user has sufficient credit associated with the account; para 0217, para 0220 wherein the prior art teaches command to add charge to user’s credit card account; para 0225, para 0229 wherein the prior art teaches displaying list of bills from merchants including last bill payment, auto-payment and teaches selecting items/products to add to purchase items ; para 0235 wherein the prior art teaches user select payment of credit cards where the user has the option of paying; para 0250-0253, wherein the prior art teaches searching bill and para 0258, may include payment processor to credit the amount as a credit card for funding source)
Hammad does not explicitly teach:
…the loan issued for the specific product…
Vintila teaches:
the loan issued for the specific product.((Vintila) in at least Fig. 26A-C; para 0317-0320)
Both Hammad and Vintila teach applying a mobile commerce app for performing transactions with multiple payment options including credit for different transaction provided in the mobile app (resource). Hammad teaches purchasing on credit identified products with specific identifiers. Vintila teaches the motivation that such commerce options can include micro-loans with loan offers which include terms of the loan for individual processes that can be used to payoff funding sources and avoid accrual of interest of one or more other payment methods for purchase of specific products. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the credit card use for payments of identified products purchased of Hammad to include options for micro-loans as taught by Vintila since Vintila teaches the motivation that such commerce options can include micro-loans with loan offers which include terms of the loan for individual processes that can be used to payoff funding sources and avoid accrual of interest of one or more other payment methods
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12
(Original) The server of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above),
wherein the set of allowable actions comprise at least one of receiving information relating to products, initiating a dispute, staging payments, or executing payments. ((Hammad) in at least para 0096-0097, para 0115, para 0123, para 0231, para 0247-0253)
In reference to Claim 13:
Hammad teaches:
(Original) The server of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above),
wherein the identifier comprises at least one of a vehicle identification number, a serial number, an inventory number, a purchase order number, or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading. .((Hammad) in at least para 0135, para 0187, para 0190, para 0250, para 0253)
In reference to Claim 14:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14
(Original) The server of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above),
Hammad does not explicitly teach:
wherein the data corresponding to the product includes a balance due associated with a loan against the product, loan terms of the loan, accrued interest, and an interest rate.
Vintila teaches:
wherein the data corresponding to the product includes a balance due associated with a loan against the product, loan terms of the loan, accrued interest, and an interest rate. .((Vintila) in at least Fig. 26A-C; para 0317-0320)
Both Hammad and Vintila teach applying a mobile commerce app for performing transactions with multiple options for different transaction provided in the mobile app (resource). Vintila teaches the motivation that such commerce options can include micro-loans with loan offers which include terms of the loan for individual processes that can be used to payoff funding sources and avoid accrual of interest of one or more payment methods. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transactions options of a payment app of Hammad to include options for micro-loans as taught by Vintila since Vintila teaches the motivation that such commerce options can include micro-loans with loan offers which include terms of the loan for individual processes that can be used to payoff funding sources and avoid accrual of interest of one or more payment methods
In reference to Claim 15:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15
(Original) The server of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), further configured to:
receive, from the resource, a selection of an action from the set of allowable action ((Hammad) in at least para 0047, para 0135, para 0200, para 0227-0229, para 0231-0232, para 0235-0236);; and
perform, by the server, the action according to the selection. ((Hammad) in at least para 0047, para 0135, para 0227-0229, para 0231-0232, para 0231-0236)
In reference to Claim 16:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 16
(Original) The server of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above),
wherein the action comprises executing payment, wherein performing the action comprises initiating, by the server, a transfer of funds from a first account, according to a payment amount indicated in the data corresponding to the product. ((Hammad) in at least para 0218-0220, para 0235-0237),
In reference to Claim 17:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of independent claim 15. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17
(Original) The server of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above),
wherein the action comprises staging payment, wherein performing the action comprises adding the identifier to a queue for executing payment for the product by a second user. ((Hammad) in at least para 0235-0237, para 0256 wherein the prior art teaches user adding offer code and finding merchants who accept offer code),
In reference to Claim 19:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19
(Original) The server of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), further configured to:
transmit, to the resource, by the server, responsive to receiving the selection and performing the action, a notification indicating completion of the action. ((Hammad) in at least para 0014, para 0018, para 0115, para 0135, para 0189).
In reference to Claim 20:
Hammad teaches:
Device Claim 20 functional processes correspond to the method steps of method claim 1. The additional limitations recited in claim 20 that go beyond the limitations of claim 1 include a device comprising one or more processors configured to execute a resource ((Hammad) in at least para 0271), the resource analogous to the resource of claim 1 configured to perform the operations that correspond to claim 1:
Therefore, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claim(s) 8-9 of claim 5 above, Claim(s) 18 of claim 15 above is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/082190 A1 by Hammad et al (Hammad), in view of in view of CA 3007992 A1 by Vintila et al (Vintila) and further in view of US Patent No. 8,958,605 B1 by Amtrup et al. (Amtrup)
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8
(Original) The method of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the identifier comprises …
wherein the action comprises initiating a dispute corresponding to the purchase order. ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B; para 0252)
Hammad does not explicitly teach:
at least one of a purchase order number or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading associated with the purchase order, and ((Hammad) in at least para 0260)
Amtrup teaches:
at least one of a purchase order number or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading associated with the purchase order ((Amtrup) in at least Col 4 lines 57-Col 5 lines 1-56, col 6 lines 11-26) , and
Both Hammad and Amtrup recognize transaction which apply purchase orders and teach capturing using OCR technology invoice data for use in disputes. Amtrup teaches the motivation of capturing the purchase order number in order to match the number and other purchase order data against invoices in order to validate the invoice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invoice data captured for initiating disputes of Hammad to include purchase order numbers as taught by Amtrup since Amtrup teaches the motivation of capturing the purchase order number in order to match the number and other purchase order data against invoices in order to validate the invoice
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of Hammad, Vintila and Amtrup discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8. Amtrup further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9:
(Original) The method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein performing the action comprises:
determining, by the resource, a first count of products …((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B;
receiving, by the resource, a second count of received products …((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B); and
transmitting, by the resource, to a device, data to initiate to the dispute, the data comprising the first count, the second count, and the identifier((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B; para 0250-0252).
Hammad does not explicitly teach:
determining, by the resource, a first count of products corresponding to the purchase order;
receiving, by the resource, a second count of received products; and
Amtrup teaches:
determining, by the resource, a first count of products corresponding to the purchase order ((Amtrup) in at least Col 6 lines 3-26) ;
receiving, by the resource, a second count of received products ((Amtrup) in at least Col 8 lines 5-10, lines 42-55, Col 11 lines 59-Col 12 lines 1-7); and
Both Hammad and Amtrup teach capturing invoice data and teach that purchase orders can be part of the invoice process. Amtrup teaches the motivation of determining the quantity received against the quantity of the purchase order in order to validate the receipt of goods with the purchase order. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invoice data captured and use of such invoices for initiating disputes of Hammad to include the validation of invoices to goods as taught by Amtrup since Amtrup teaches the motivation of determining the quantity received against the quantity of the purchase order in order to validate the receipt of goods with the purchase order.
In reference to Claim 18:
The combination of Hammad and Vintila discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15. Hammad further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18
(Original) The server of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the identifier comprises
at least one of a…order number or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading associated with the … order, and wherein the action comprises initiating a dispute corresponding to the …order((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B; para 0252); and
wherein performing the action comprises:
determining, by the server, a first count of products corresponding to the …order …((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B);
receiving, by the server, a second count of received products …((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B); and
transmitting, to the resource, by the server, data to initiate to the dispute, the data comprising the first count, the second count, and the identifier ((Hammad) in at least FIG. 19B; para 0250-0252).
Hammad does not explicitly teach:
at least one of a purchase order number or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading associated with the purchase order, …
determining, by the server, a first count of products corresponding to the purchase order;
receiving, by the server, a second count of received products; and
Amtrup teaches:
at least one of a purchase order number or an identifier corresponding to a bill of lading associated with the purchase order ((Amtrup) in at least Col 4 lines 57-Col 5 lines 1-56, col 6 lines 11-26)
determining, by the server, a first count of products corresponding to the purchase order ((Amtrup) in at least Col 6 lines 3-26);
determining, by the server, a first count of products corresponding to the purchase order ((Amtrup) in at least Col 8 lines 5-10, lines 42-55, Col 11 lines 59-Col 12 lines 1-7);
Both Hammad and Amtrup recognize transaction which apply purchase orders and teach capturing using OCR technology invoice data for use in disputes. Amtrup teaches the motivation of capturing the purchase order number in order to match the number and other purchase order data against invoices in order to validate the invoice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invoice data captured for initiating disputes of Hammad to include purchase order numbers as taught by Amtrup since Amtrup teaches the motivation of capturing the purchase order number in order to match the number and other purchase order data against invoices in order to validate the invoice
Both Hammad and Amtrup teach capturing invoice data and teach that purchase orders can be part of the invoice process. Amtrup teaches the motivation of determining the quantity received against the quantity of the purchase order in order to validate the receipt of goods with the purchase order. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invoice data captured and use of such invoices for initiating disputes of Hammad to include the validation of invoices to goods as taught by Amtrup since Amtrup teaches the motivation of determining the quantity received against the quantity of the purchase order in order to validate the receipt of goods with the purchase order.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 8,744,956 B1 by DiChiara et al; US Patent No. 7,774,270 B1 by MacCloskey
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights