DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed February 16, 2026. Claims 1-11. 14-18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the § 101 rejection, Applicant states, “Initially, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 7 and 14 do not recite an abstract idea due to the technical details of the access point devices and the detection and use of the wireless signal.” (Page 8 of Applicant’s response) The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There are no specific technical details as to HOW the additional elements collect the data recited in the claims. The type of data is defined and the additional elements generally collect the specified data. Aside form the general use of the additional elements as tools, a human user could review the recited data and perform the related analysis. Also, the invention is largely used to manage human behavior, which is an example of organizing human activity.
Applicant submits that the claims integrate any abstract ideas into a practical application by performing mitigation operations when abnormal conditions are detected (pages 8-9 of Applicant’s response). As explained in the rejection, some of the possible mitigation operations may be performed by a human (such as opening a payment machine). Claims 10 and 17 present more specific details regarding a technically-integrated mitigation operation; therefore, claims 10 and 17 have been identified as patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant argues that “Douglas is focused on determining when a wait time in a queue rises above a predetermined threshold. (See, e.g., Douglas, par. [0068].) If the wait time is too high, Douglas will open a new queue or open a register. Douglas is thus focused on how quickly a customer moves through a line to get to a register, not whether the client is remaining at a static position at the register.” (Page 9 of Applicant’s response) The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in ¶ 68 of Douglas, “[i]n certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale.” Waiting in a queue is deemed to be a relatively “static” position in the sense that the waiting customer has been in the same “waiting” status for a given amount of time. Gleaned from ¶¶ 31 and 68 of Douglas is that a number of open/closed checkout lines at a point of sale (i.e., a payment machine) may be adjusted based on wait times (i.e., people are waiting, are not being productive, are idle, etc. and are, thus, “static” in a sense). The rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 1 recites “the at least one wireless device” in line 5 of the claim. It appears that this should instead say “the wireless device” in order to provide proper antecedent basis. The dependent claims inherit this objection. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to “a system and method for operational analytics that can enable retailers to respond to real-time localized changes” (Spec: ¶ 2) without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Apparatus (claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-20)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 1] receive a signal strength indicator for the wireless device,
calculate a position of the wireless device based a location of each of the plurality of access point devices and on the signal strength indicator for the wireless device,
determine that the position is within a predetermined checkout area, and
automatically perform at least one mitigation operation when the wireless device has remained at the predetermined checkout area for a predetermined amount of time and the wireless device has remained at a static position within a predetermined distance of a payment machine.
[Claim 7] receive a signal strength indicator for the wireless device,
calculate a position of the wireless device based on a location of each of the plurality of access point devices and the signal strength indicator for the wireless device,
determine that the position is within a predetermined area,
determine an amount of time that the wireless device is located within the predetermined area and a number of transactions occurring within the amount of time,
automatically perform at least one mitigation operation when the wireless device has been located within the predetermined area for a threshold amount of time, the wireless device has remained at a static position within a predetermined distance of a payment machine, and a threshold number of transactions have occurred within the predetermined area during the threshold amount of time.
[Claim 14] receive a signal strength indicator for the wireless device,
calculate a device position of the wireless device based on a location of each of the plurality of access point devices and the signal strength indicator for the wireless device,
determine that the device position is adjacent a known position,
determine a number of transactions performed by the wireless device while the device position is adjacent the known position, and
automatically perform at least one mitigation operation when the number of transactions exceeds a threshold number while the wireless device is at the device position adjacent the known position and has remained at a static position within a predetermined distance of a payment machine.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1)(III), “[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can receive information regarding signal strength of a wireless device, calculate a position of the device based on the signal strength, and determine if the position is within a predetermined checkout area (mentally and/or with the use of pen and paper). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to managing sales transactions, which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of sales activities or behaviors and business relations (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites an operational analytics system comprising:
a plurality of access point devices configured to receive a wireless signal from a wireless device; and
an electronic controller configured to generally perform the recited operations. Furthermore, a signal strength indicator for the wireless device is received by each of the plurality of access point devices.
Claim 7 recites an operational analytics system comprising:
a plurality of access point devices configured to receive a wireless signal from a wireless device; and
an electronic controller configured to generally perform the recited operations. Furthermore, a signal strength indicator for the wireless device is received by each of the plurality of access point devices.
Claim 14 recites an operational analytics system comprising:
a plurality of access point devices configured to receive a wireless signal from a wireless device; and
an electronic controller configured to generally perform the recited operations. Furthermore, a signal strength indicator for the wireless device is received by each of the plurality of access point devices.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 28-30).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 2] the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically opening a closed payment machine.
[Claim 3] the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically assigning store personnel to the payment machine.
[Claim 4] automatically perform the at least one mitigation operation when the wireless device has remained within a certain radius within the predetermined checkout area for the predetermined amount of time.
[Claim 5] automatically perform the at least one mitigation operation when the wireless device has maintained the static position for the predetermined amount of time.
[Claim 6] cause the mitigation operation upon determining that use of the wireless device at the second store diverges from use of the wireless device at the first store.
[Claim 8] the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically shutting down a register within the predetermined area.
[Claim 9] the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically shutting down a fuel pump within the predetermined area.
[Claim 11] communicate about a number and a type of occurring transactions at the payment machine.
[Claim 12] determine the threshold number of transactions based on prior communications with the payment machine regarding the number and the type of occurring transactions at the payment machine.
[Claim 13] wherein the predetermined area is adjacent or near a checkout position.
[Claim 15] the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically shutting down a register.
[Claim 16] the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically shutting down a fuel pump.
[Claim 18] communicate about a number and a type of occurring transactions at the payment machine.
[Claim 19] determine the threshold number of transactions based on prior communications with the payment machine regarding the number and the type of occurring transactions at the payment machine.
[Claim 20] wherein the known position is a position of the payment machine.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1)(III), “[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can receive information regarding signal strength of a wireless device, calculate a position of the device based on the signal strength, determine if the position is within a predetermined checkout area, communicate information, determining a threshold number of transactions, and determine a position of a payment machine (mentally and/or with the use of pen and paper). A human user can also observe the movement of a wireless device (e.g., by observing a person carrying around the wireless device to gather information) If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to managing sales transactions, which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of sales activities or behaviors and business relations (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity. Additionally, a human user may be instructed to perform a mitigation operation, open or close a payment machine and/or register. A human user can also shut down a fuel pump. These are additional examples of managing personal behavior and instructing humans, i.e., organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims include the additional elements of their independent claims
Claim 1 recites an operational analytics system comprising:
a plurality of access point devices configured to receive a wireless signal from a wireless device; and
an electronic controller configured to generally perform the recited operations. Furthermore, a signal strength indicator for the wireless device is received by each of the plurality of access point devices.
Dependent claims 2-6 recite that the electronic controller is configured to generally perform the recited operations.
Claim 7 recites an operational analytics system comprising:
a plurality of access point devices configured to receive a wireless signal from a wireless device; and
an electronic controller configured to generally perform the recited operations. Furthermore, a signal strength indicator for the wireless device is received by each of the plurality of access point devices.
Dependent claims 8-9 and 11-12 recite that the electronic controller is configured to generally perform the recited operations.
Claim 11 also recites wherein the electronic controller is configured to communicate with the payment machine.
Claim 14 recites an operational analytics system comprising:
a plurality of access point devices configured to receive a wireless signal from a wireless device; and
an electronic controller configured to generally perform the recited operations. Furthermore, a signal strength indicator for the wireless device is received by each of the plurality of access point devices.
Dependent claims 15-16 and 18-19 recite that the electronic controller is configured to generally perform the recited operations.
Claim 18 also recites wherein the electronic controller is configured to communicate with the payment machine.
Regarding claims 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, operations related to automatically opening a closed payment machine (claim 2) and automatically shutting down a register or a fuel pump (claims 8, 9, 15, 16) are seen as operations that can be performed by the electronic controller sending a corresponding instruction to a human. For example, Applicant’s Specification explains, “The mitigation operation can include automatically opening a self-checkout register, or selecting a closed register to open and assigning store personnel. For example, when the controller 22 determines that the wireless device WD has been in a static position for a time T that is greater than the threshold time Ttrshld, the controller 22 can automatically open the closed register and notify store personal that a specific person has been selected to operate the register and to report immediately to the specific register. In these embodiment, the known position KP can be a checkout register that is open by store personal or automatically.” (Spec: ¶ 54) The opening or closing of a point-of-sale (e.g., a register or fuel pump) may be a task assigned to a human user. “Automatically” may simply mean “in direct response to” and the electronic controller may simply send instructions to human users accordingly. Specific details regarding how a register or fuel pump is opened or closed without human intervention and fully by the electronic controller from a physical point of view are not presented in the claims. Thus, the electronic controller is merely seen as generally applied to perform these operations. This interpretation is further bolstered by the fact that claim 3 automatically assigns store personnel to a payment machine, which could imply the opening of a payment machine.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 28-30).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
NOTE: Claims 10 and 17 are deemed to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Each falls into at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (apparatus). While they present details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to independent claims 7 and 14, the fact that (in apparatus claims) the electronic controller is configured to receive a signal strength for a wireless device from an access point device to calculate a position of the wireless device and is further configured to then use this information to cause the payment machine to confiscate a payment method within the payment machine when the wireless device has remained at the predetermined checkout area for a predetermined amount of time and the wireless device has remained at a static position within a predetermined distance of a payment machine (claim 10) and to cause the payment machine to confiscate a payment method within the payment machine when the number of transactions exceeds the threshold number while the wireless device is at the device position adjacent the known position and has remained at a static position within a predetermined distance of a payment machine (claim 17) presents more than a general link to technology and integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Applicant’s Specification states, “The mitigation operation can also include an automatic response to shut down the payment machine and/or confiscate any payment method (e.g. credit or debit card) that is within the payment machine.” (Spec: ¶ 64) In order for a payment machine to confiscate a “payment method within the payment machine” (as recited in claims 10 and 17), it is understood that the electronic controller is configured to control the payment machine such that the payment machine actively confiscates a physical payment method (which, as seen in Applicant’s Specification, may be a credit or debit card (for example)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Douglas et al. (US 2017/0006429).
[Claim 1] Douglas discloses an operational analytics system (abstract) comprising:
a plurality of access point devices configured to receive a wireless signal from the wireless device (¶ 38 – “Beacons/Receivers 203 may be configured to interact with one or more components of path management system 200. In some embodiments, beacons/receivers 203 may be configured to interact with user device 201. For example, beacons/receivers 203 may be configured to detect the presence of and/or communicate with a proximate user device 201. In some aspects, beacons/receivers 203 may comprise one or more beacons, such as Bluetooth low energy beacons, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, wireless transmitters and/or any other type of transmitter configured to provide a signal for detection by user device 201. In various aspects, beacons/receivers 203 may comprise one or more receivers, such as Bluetooth low energy devices, radio frequency identification (RFID) receivers, wireless receivers and/or any other type of receiver configured to receive a signal provided by user device 201. Path management system 200 may be configured based on the assumption that the location of user device 201 indicates the location of user 201A.” The beacons and receivers are examples of an access point device.); and
an electronic controller (fig. 2, ¶ 33 – The system for path management 200 facilitates operations of the invention and includes various system components that may specifically carry out certain operations. “FIG. 2 depicts a schematic illustrating an exemplary system for path management 200 consistent with disclosed embodiments. In some embodiments, the components of path management system 200 are configured to exchange data and instructions to realize the operations discussed above with respect to FIG. 1. In certain aspects user device 201 may be configured to interact with beacons/receivers 203 to generate user data 111. In various aspects, one or more of user device 201 and beacons/receivers 203 may be configured to provide user data 111 over network 207. In some aspects, path management system 205 may be configured to receive user data 111 from one or more of user device 201 and beacons/receivers 203. In certain embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to determine locations for users based on the user data 111. In certain aspects, user data 111 may comprise locations for users. In some embodiments, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine paths for users based on locations for users. In certain aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine one or more path maps. The path maps may indicate collective behavior of users based on aggregated path data for users. Path management unit 205 may be configured to determine one or more of path maps indicating user density and path maps indicating user velocity.”) configured to
receive a signal strength indicator for the at least one wireless device from each of the plurality of access point devices (¶ 52 – “Each beacon may be configured to periodically transmit signals, as described above, such as BLE signals. Each user device may be configured to receive these transmitted signals. In some embodiments, each device may be configured to estimate a distance between the device and each beacon based on the transmitted signals. For example, the received signals may vary in strength depending on a distance between a user device and a beacon. The user device may be configured to estimate a distance between the user device and the beacon based on this signal strength. In certain embodiments, the user device may be configured to indicate discrete categories of signal strength.”; ¶ 53 – “Consistent with disclosed embodiments, in this non-limiting example, path management unit 205 may be configured to calculate distances between user device 201 and the first beacon 311, second beacon 313, and third beacon (not shown). In some embodiments, path management unit 205 may be configured to calculate distances based on a signal indicator associated with the beacon (as described above) and one or more of the range category and received signal strength indication.”),
calculate a position of the wireless device based on a location of each of the plurality of access point devices and on the signal strength indicator for the wireless device received by each of the plurality of access point devices (¶ 71 – “Path management system 200 may be configured to detect a user in step 503, consistent with disclosed embodiments. As described above with respect to FIGS. 2, 3A and 3B, path management system 200 may be configured to periodically receive indications of distance from one or more of user device 201 and beacons/receivers 203. For example, user device 201 may be configured to provide one or more of distance categories, received signal strength indications, estimated distances, and determined user device locations to path management unit 205 based on broadcast beacon signal identifiers. As an additional example, beacons/receivers 203 may be configured to provide one or more of distance categories, received signal strength indications, and estimated distances from user device 201 based on broadcast user device signals. For example, user device 201 may be configured to broadcast signal identifiers. In certain aspects, based on one or more of distance categories, received signal strength indications, and estimated distances, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine locations for user device 205. In various aspects, based on determined and/or received user device locations, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine user paths.”),
determine that the position is within a predetermined checkout area (¶ 11 – “In certain aspects, the service location may include one or more of a point of sale, a queue, an access point, and a facility.” A point of sale and/or a queue service location are examples of a predetermined checkout area.; ¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale. Path management system 205 may be configured to provide a path to this secondary point of sale.”), and
automatically perform at least one mitigation operation when the wireless device has remained at the predetermined checkout area for a predetermined amount of time (¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale.”) and the wireless device has remained at a static position within a predetermined distance of a payment machine (¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale.” Waiting in a queue is deemed to be a relatively “static” position in the sense that the waiting customer has been in the same “waiting” status for a given amount of time.; ¶ 31 – “For example, modification instructions 113 may comprise instructions to create or merge lines, such as checkout lines at a point of sale…” The point of sale is where checkout, i.e., payment, occurs and is, thus, an example of a payment machine. Gleaned from ¶¶ 31 and 68 of Douglas is that a number of open/closed checkout lines at a point of sale (i.e., a payment machine) may be adjusted based on wait times (i.e., people are waiting, are not being productive, are idle, etc. and are, thus, “static” in a sense).).
[Claim 2] Douglas discloses wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically opening a closed payment machine (¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale.”; ¶ 31 – “For example, modification instructions 113 may comprise instructions to create or merge lines, such as checkout lines at a point of sale…” The point of sale is where checkout, i.e., payment, occurs and is, thus, an example of a payment machine.).
[Claim 3] Douglas discloses wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically assigning store personnel to the payment machine (¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale.”; ¶ 31 – “For example, modification instructions 113 may comprise instructions to create or merge lines, such as checkout lines at a point of sale…” The point of sale is where checkout, i.e., payment, occurs and is, thus, an example of a payment machine.).
[Claim 5] Douglas discloses wherein the electronic controller is configured to automatically perform the at least one mitigation operation when the wireless device has maintained the static position for the predetermined amount of time (¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale.” Waiting in a queue is deemed to be a relatively “static” position in the sense that the waiting customer has been in the same “waiting” status for a given amount of time.; ¶ 31 – “For example, modification instructions 113 may comprise instructions to create or merge lines, such as checkout lines at a point of sale…” The point of sale is where checkout, i.e., payment, occurs and is, thus, an example of a payment machine. Gleaned from ¶¶ 31 and 68 of Douglas is that a number of open/closed checkout lines at a point of sale (i.e., a payment machine) may be adjusted based on wait times (i.e., people are waiting, are not being productive, are idle, etc. and are, thus, “static” in a sense).).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (US 2017/0006429), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jhas et al. (US 2021/0081924).
[Claim 4] Douglas discloses wherein the electronic controller is configured to automatically perform the at least one mitigation operation when the wireless device has remained within a certain area within the predetermined checkout area for the predetermined amount of time (Douglas: ¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale.”). Douglas does not explicitly disclose wherein the certain area within the predetermined checkout area is “within a certain radius”. Jhas uses the relative signal strength of a user’s mobile device to detect where a user is (Jhas: ¶ 179) and users may be determined to be in each of various zones defined by a radius from a merchant computing device (Jhas: fig. 4D, ¶¶ 157-159). The zone in which a user is detected may affect the functionality available via the user’s device (Jhas: ¶ 160). Transactions, including payments, are authorized within the inner-most circle, which defines the transaction zone (Jhas: ¶¶ 159-160). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Douglas wherein the electronic controller is configured to automatically perform the at least one mitigation operation when the wireless device has remained within a certain radius within the predetermined checkout area for the predetermined amount of time in order to add an extra layer of security ensuring that the person actually making a purchase is the authorized payment user and associated with the proper mobile device (as suggested in ¶¶ 84, 88, 89 of Jhas).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (US 2017/0006429), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Powers (US 2010/0051684).
[Claim 6] Douglas discloses wherein
the electronic controller is in communication with at least a first store and a second store (¶ 81 – “For example, path management system 200 may generate a comparison of estimated wait times at service locations based on the gather user data. In some aspects, the service locations may comprise points of sale or queues, or stores in the same franchise or similar categories (e.g., fast food establishments, or coffee shops).”).
Douglas does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic controller is configured to cause the mitigation operation upon determining that use of the wireless device at the second store diverges from use of the wireless device at the first store. Powers discloses that a previous payment transaction attributed to a payment (e.g., credit or debit) card is compared to a current payment transaction request. Distance between where the two compared transactions occurred and the time period between the transactions are evaluated to determine if the cardholder could feasibly have traveled the distance within the given time period to make both transactions (Powers: ¶¶ 23-35). In other words, determining that two transactions made with the same payment card, but within an infeasible time frame given the distance is a red flag that the payment card might have been and/or is being used fraudulently. The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Douglas wherein the electronic controller is configured to cause the mitigation operation upon determining that use of the wireless device at the second store diverges from use of the wireless device at the first store in order to facilitate fraud detection and raise alerts in an attempt to prevent and/or mitigate the fraud (as suggested in ¶ 15 of Powers).
Claims 7-8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (US 2017/0006429) in view of Agarwal (US 2017/0046706).
[Claim 7] Douglas discloses an operational analytics system (abstract) comprising:
plurality of access point devices configured to receive a wireless signal from a wireless device (¶ 38 – “Beacons/Receivers 203 may be configured to interact with one or more components of path management system 200. In some embodiments, beacons/receivers 203 may be configured to interact with user device 201. For example, beacons/receivers 203 may be configured to detect the presence of and/or communicate with a proximate user device 201. In some aspects, beacons/receivers 203 may comprise one or more beacons, such as Bluetooth low energy beacons, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, wireless transmitters and/or any other type of transmitter configured to provide a signal for detection by user device 201. In various aspects, beacons/receivers 203 may comprise one or more receivers, such as Bluetooth low energy devices, radio frequency identification (RFID) receivers, wireless receivers and/or any other type of receiver configured to receive a signal provided by user device 201. Path management system 200 may be configured based on the assumption that the location of user device 201 indicates the location of user 201A.” The beacons and receivers are examples of an access point device.); and
an electronic controller (fig. 2, ¶ 33 – The system for path management 200 facilitates operations of the invention and includes various system components that may specifically carry out certain operations. “FIG. 2 depicts a schematic illustrating an exemplary system for path management 200 consistent with disclosed embodiments. In some embodiments, the components of path management system 200 are configured to exchange data and instructions to realize the operations discussed above with respect to FIG. 1. In certain aspects user device 201 may be configured to interact with beacons/receivers 203 to generate user data 111. In various aspects, one or more of user device 201 and beacons/receivers 203 may be configured to provide user data 111 over network 207. In some aspects, path management system 205 may be configured to receive user data 111 from one or more of user device 201 and beacons/receivers 203. In certain embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to determine locations for users based on the user data 111. In certain aspects, user data 111 may comprise locations for users. In some embodiments, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine paths for users based on locations for users. In certain aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine one or more path maps. The path maps may indicate collective behavior of users based on aggregated path data for users. Path management unit 205 may be configured to determine one or more of path maps indicating user density and path maps indicating user velocity.”) configured to
receive a signal strength indicator for the wireless device from each of the plurality of access point device (¶ 52 – “Each beacon may be configured to periodically transmit signals, as described above, such as BLE signals. Each user device may be configured to receive these transmitted signals. In some embodiments, each device may be configured to estimate a distance between the device and each beacon based on the transmitted signals. For example, the received signals may vary in strength depending on a distance between a user device and a beacon. The user device may be configured to estimate a distance between the user device and the beacon based on this signal strength. In certain embodiments, the user device may be configured to indicate discrete categories of signal strength.”; ¶ 53 – “Consistent with disclosed embodiments, in this non-limiting example, path management unit 205 may be configured to calculate distances between user device 201 and the first beacon 311, second beacon 313, and third beacon (not shown). In some embodiments, path management unit 205 may be configured to calculate distances based on a signal indicator associated with the beacon (as described above) and one or more of the range category and received signal strength indication.”),
calculate a position of the wireless device based on a location of each of the plurality of access point devices and the signal strength indicator for the wireless device received by each of the plurality of access point devices (¶ 71 – “Path management system 200 may be configured to detect a user in step 503, consistent with disclosed embodiments. As described above with respect to FIGS. 2, 3A and 3B, path management system 200 may be configured to periodically receive indications of distance from one or more of user device 201 and beacons/receivers 203. For example, user device 201 may be configured to provide one or more of distance categories, received signal strength indications, estimated distances, and determined user device locations to path management unit 205 based on broadcast beacon signal identifiers. As an additional example, beacons/receivers 203 may be configured to provide one or more of distance categories, received signal strength indications, and estimated distances from user device 201 based on broadcast user device signals. For example, user device 201 may be configured to broadcast signal identifiers. In certain aspects, based on one or more of distance categories, received signal strength indications, and estimated distances, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine locations for user device 205. In various aspects, based on determined and/or received user device locations, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine user paths.”),
determine that the position is within a predetermined area (¶ 11 – “ In certain aspects, the service location may include one or more of a point of sale, a queue, an access point, and a facility.” A point of sale and/or a queue service location are examples of a predetermined checkout area.; ¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale. Path management system 205 may be configured to provide a path to this secondary point of sale.”).
Douglas determines an amount of time that the wireless device is located within the predetermined area (Douglas: ¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale.”). Douglas also automatically performs at least one mitigation operation when the wireless device has been located within the predetermined area for a threshold amount of time, the wireless device has remained at a static position within a predetermined distance of a payment machine (¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale.” Waiting in a queue is deemed to be a relatively “static” position in the sense that the waiting customer has been in the same “waiting” status for a given amount of time.; ¶ 31 – “For example, modification instructions 113 may comprise instructions to create or merge lines, such as checkout lines at a point of sale…” The point of sale is where checkout, i.e., payment, occurs and is, thus, an example of a payment machine. Gleaned from ¶¶ 31 and 68 of Douglas is that a number of open/closed checkout lines at a point of sale (i.e., a payment machine) may be adjusted based on wait times (i.e., people are waiting, are not being productive, are idle, etc. and are, thus, “static” in a sense).).
Douglas does not fully disclose that the electronic controller is configured to:
determine an amount of time that the wireless device is located within the predetermined area and a number of transactions occurring within the amount of time,
automatically perform at least one mitigation operation when the at least one wireless device has been located within the predetermined area for a threshold amount of time, the wireless device has remained at a static position within a predetermined distance of a payment machine, and a threshold number of transactions have occurred within the predetermined area during the threshold amount of time.
In other words, Douglas does not specifically address a number of transactions occurring within the amount of time and a threshold number of transactions have occurred within the predetermined area during the threshold amount of time.
In a point-of-sale (POS) service environment similar to that of Douglas, Agarwal evaluates thresholds of transactions related to a POS terminal over a defined threshold time, as seen in the following excerpts:
[0031] Further operations that may be performed by the authorization control node 150 in conjunction with the credit issuer node 140 are illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 5. The risk score for the POS terminal 120 can be generated based on similarity between the geographic locations reported by the mobile terminals, based on consistency of the geographic locations over a defined threshold time, and/or based on presence of the geographic locations being within a geo-fence region in which the merchant is expected to operate.
[0033] The node 150/140 determines (block 504) whether the number of the mobile payment messages that contain the network address for the POS terminal and further contain geographic locations provided by the mobile terminals 110 that are within a threshold geographic proximity of each other, exceeds a plural threshold number. If it exceeds, the POS terminal risk score is generated (block 506) to indicate a first risk level for the POS terminal 110, and the node 150/140 authorizes (block 508) the mobile payment transaction based on a combination of the first risk level been generated for the POS terminal 110 and the transaction risk score. In sharp contrast, if the number does not exceed the threshold number, the POS terminal risk score is generated (block 510) to indicate a second risk level, which corresponds to a higher risk of fraud, for the POS terminal 110, and the node 150/140 declines (block 512) the mobile payment transaction based on a combination of the second POS terminal risk score being generated for the POS terminal 110 and the transaction risk score.
[0035] The POS terminal risk score may be generated based on how many different mobile terminals have reported locations during mobile payment transactions through the PUS terminal 120. The POS terminal 120 may be determined to have a lower risk score when it has been used with more than a threshold number of different mobile terminals, which can indicate a lower likelihood of fraudulent use. In one embodiment, each of the mobile payment messages further contains a mobile terminal identifier. The POS terminal risk score is generated based on a number of the mobile payment messages that contain the network address for the POS terminal 120 and further contain geographic locations provided by the mobile terminals that are within a threshold geographic proximity of each other. The POS terminal risk score is further generated based on how many of the number of the mobile payment messages contain mobile terminal identifiers that are different from each other.
A “threshold number of transactions” may be understood to be a relative assessment of whether the number is on one side of the threshold number or on the other side of the threshold number. In Agarwal’s scenarios, being on one side of the threshold number within a given threshold amount of time signifies higher risk of fraud at a POS terminal, at which point a particular mobile payment transaction may be denied (as explained in the cited portion of Agarwal above). Douglas tracks users via mobile devices in an environment with points of sale and Agarwal presents enhanced uses for the type of information that Douglas does or is capable of gathering, including enhanced fraud detection and mitigation. The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Douglas such that the electronic controller is configured to:
determine an amount of time that the wireless device is located within the predetermined area and a number of transactions occurring within the amount of time,
automatically perform at least one mitigation operation when the at least one wireless device has been located within the predetermined area for a threshold amount of time, the wireless device has remained at a static position within a predetermined distance of a payment machine, and a threshold number of transactions have occurred within the predetermined area during the threshold amount of time.
in order to facilitate fraud detection and perform mitigating actions, as needed (as suggested in ¶ 34 of Agarwal).
[Claim 8] Douglas can close and open registers at points of sale in response to detected circumstances (Douglas: ¶¶ 31, 68). Douglas does not explicitly discloses wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically shutting down a register within the predetermined area. In a point-of-sale (POS) service environment similar to that of Douglas, Agarwal evaluates thresholds of transactions related to a POS terminal over a defined threshold time, as seen in the following excerpts:
[0031] Further operations that may be performed by the authorization control node 150 in conjunction with the credit issuer node 140 are illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 5. The risk score for the POS terminal 120 can be generated based on similarity between the geographic locations reported by the mobile terminals, based on consistency of the geographic locations over a defined threshold time, and/or based on presence of the geographic locations being within a geo-fence region in which the merchant is expected to operate.
[0033] The node 150/140 determines (block 504) whether the number of the mobile payment messages that contain the network address for the POS terminal and further contain geographic locations provided by the mobile terminals 110 that are within a threshold geographic proximity of each other, exceeds a plural threshold number. If it exceeds, the POS terminal risk score is generated (block 506) to indicate a first risk level for the POS terminal 110, and the node 150/140 authorizes (block 508) the mobile payment transaction based on a combination of the first risk level been generated for the POS terminal 110 and the transaction risk score. In sharp contrast, if the number does not exceed the threshold number, the POS terminal risk score is generated (block 510) to indicate a second risk level, which corresponds to a higher risk of fraud, for the POS terminal 110, and the node 150/140 declines (block 512) the mobile payment transaction based on a combination of the second POS terminal risk score being generated for the POS terminal 110 and the transaction risk score.
[0035] The POS terminal risk score may be generated based on how many different mobile terminals have reported locations during mobile payment transactions through the PUS terminal 120. The POS terminal 120 may be determined to have a lower risk score when it has been used with more than a threshold number of different mobile terminals, which can indicate a lower likelihood of fraudulent use. In one embodiment, each of the mobile payment messages further contains a mobile terminal identifier. The POS terminal risk score is generated based on a number of the mobile payment messages that contain the network address for the POS terminal 120 and further contain geographic locations provided by the mobile terminals that are within a threshold geographic proximity of each other. The POS terminal risk score is further generated based on how many of the number of the mobile payment messages contain mobile terminal identifiers that are different from each other.
A “threshold number of transactions” may be understood to be a relative assessment of whether the number is on one side of the threshold number or on the other side of the threshold number. In Agarwal’s scenarios, being on one side of the threshold number within a given threshold amount of time signifies higher risk of fraud at a POS terminal, at which point a particular mobile payment transaction may be denied (as explained in the cited portion of Agarwal above). Douglas tracks users via mobile devices in an environment with points of sale and Agarwal presents enhanced uses for the type of information that Douglas does or is capable of gathering, including enhanced fraud detection and mitigation. Douglas can open or close registers of a POS, as needed (Douglas: ¶¶ 31, 68) and Agarwal can decline higher risk transactions (Agarwal: ¶ 33), thereby suggesting the ability to close a register at a POS in terms of denying service to a customer at a register at a POS. The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Douglas wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically shutting down a register within the predetermined area in order to facilitate fraud detection and perform mitigating actions, as needed (as suggested in ¶ 34 of Agarwal).
[Claim 11] Douglas discloses wherein the electronic controller is configured to communicate with the payment machine about a number and a type of occurring transactions at the payment machine (¶ 31 – “For example, modification instructions 113 may comprise instructions to create or merge lines, such as checkout lines at a point of sale, or a security checkpoint, or a venue such as a concert, amusement park, club, restaurant, or similar line as would be appreciated by one of skill in the art. In certain embodiments, analysis engine 103 may be configured to automatically generate modification instructions 113 comprising instructions to change a staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, modification instructions 113 may indicate that customer service representatives are needed at a specific part of a store, or that additional cashiers are needed at a point of sale.”; ¶ 44 – “Path management unit 205 may be configured to associate paths with metadata, consistent with disclosed embodiments. In certain aspects, paths may be associated with data concerning user 201A. In various aspects, paths may be anonymized. In some aspects, paths may be associated with sales data. For example, paths may be associated with items. For example, path management device 205 may be configured to associate paths with indications of items viewed or purchased by the user associated with the tracked user device. In some embodiments, path management unit 205 may be configured to generate and provide path maps using paths associated with one or more of products, product categories, financial transaction categories (e.g., method of payment, amount of purchase, returns), and users with selected demographic characteristics.”; ¶ 68 – “For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. “; ¶ 72 – “For example, the receivers/beacons 203, device locations, paths, path maps, user density maps, and user velocity maps may be associated with metadata concerning one or more of a user, such as user 201; a product, such as item 405; and an environment, such as environment 209. In some embodiments, path management unit 205 may be configured to generate one or more of path maps, user density maps, and user velocity maps based on metadata associated with one or more of users, paths, receivers/beacons 203, and device locations. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to generate path maps specific to demographic categories of users, products or product categories, types of services or service location (e.g., every path in an environment that traverses a specific point of sale), times or periods of time, or other analytic categories that would be recognized by one of skill in the art.”).
[Claim 13] Douglas discloses wherein the predetermined area is adjacent or near a checkout position (¶¶ 31, 68 – checkout, POS area).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (US 2017/0006429) in view of Agarwal (US 2017/0046706), as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Powers (US 2010/0051684).
[Claim 9] Douglas does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically shutting down a fuel pump within the predetermined area.
In a point-of-sale (POS) service environment similar to that of Douglas, Agarwal evaluates thresholds of transactions related to a POS terminal over a defined threshold time, as seen in the following excerpts:
[0031] Further operations that may be performed by the authorization control node 150 in conjunction with the credit issuer node 140 are illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 5. The risk score for the POS terminal 120 can be generated based on similarity between the geographic locations reported by the mobile terminals, based on consistency of the geographic locations over a defined threshold time, and/or based on presence of the geographic locations being within a geo-fence region in which the merchant is expected to operate.
[0033] The node 150/140 determines (block 504) whether the number of the mobile payment messages that contain the network address for the POS terminal and further contain geographic locations provided by the mobile terminals 110 that are within a threshold geographic proximity of each other, exceeds a plural threshold number. If it exceeds, the POS terminal risk score is generated (block 506) to indicate a first risk level for the POS terminal 110, and the node 150/140 authorizes (block 508) the mobile payment transaction based on a combination of the first risk level been generated for the POS terminal 110 and the transaction risk score. In sharp contrast, if the number does not exceed the threshold number, the POS terminal risk score is generated (block 510) to indicate a second risk level, which corresponds to a higher risk of fraud, for the POS terminal 110, and the node 150/140 declines (block 512) the mobile payment transaction based on a combination of the second POS terminal risk score being generated for the POS terminal 110 and the transaction risk score.
[0035] The POS terminal risk score may be generated based on how many different mobile terminals have reported locations during mobile payment transactions through the PUS terminal 120. The POS terminal 120 may be determined to have a lower risk score when it has been used with more than a threshold number of different mobile terminals, which can indicate a lower likelihood of fraudulent use. In one embodiment, each of the mobile payment messages further contains a mobile terminal identifier. The POS terminal risk score is generated based on a number of the mobile payment messages that contain the network address for the POS terminal 120 and further contain geographic locations provided by the mobile terminals that are within a threshold geographic proximity of each other. The POS terminal risk score is further generated based on how many of the number of the mobile payment messages contain mobile terminal identifiers that are different from each other.
A “threshold number of transactions” may be understood to be a relative assessment of whether the number is on one side of the threshold number or on the other side of the threshold number. In Agarwal’s scenarios, being on one side of the threshold number within a given threshold amount of time signifies higher risk of fraud at a POS terminal, at which point a particular mobile payment transaction may be denied (as explained in the cited portion of Agarwal above). Douglas tracks users via mobile devices in an environment with points of sale and Agarwal presents enhanced uses for the type of information that Douglas does or is capable of gathering, including enhanced fraud detection and mitigation. While Douglas and Agarwal do not explicitly disclose that their points of sale may include a fuel pump, Powers explains that a fuel pump may be a type of point of sale (Powers: ¶¶ 2, 6). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Douglas wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically shutting down a fuel pump within the predetermined area in order to facilitate fraud detection and perform mitigating actions, as needed (as suggested in ¶ 34 of Agarwal), while addressing the needs of a wider range of customers by addressing fraud at multiple types of points of sale, including a fuel pump.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (US 2017/0006429) in view of Agarwal (US 2017/0046706), as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Charles et al. (US 2009/0283597).
[Claim 10] Douglas does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes causing the payment machine to confiscate a payment method within the payment machine.
In a point-of-sale (POS) service environment similar to that of Douglas, Agarwal evaluates thresholds of transactions related to a POS terminal over a defined threshold time, as seen in the following excerpts:
[0031] Further operations that may be performed by the authorization control node 150 in conjunction with the credit issuer node 140 are illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 5. The risk score for the POS terminal 120 can be generated based on similarity between the geographic locations reported by the mobile terminals, based on consistency of the geographic locations over a defined threshold time, and/or based on presence of the geographic locations being within a geo-fence region in which the merchant is expected to operate.
[0033] The node 150/140 determines (block 504) whether the number of the mobile payment messages that contain the network address for the POS terminal and further contain geographic locations provided by the mobile terminals 110 that are within a threshold geographic proximity of each other, exceeds a plural threshold number. If it exceeds, the POS terminal risk score is generated (block 506) to indicate a first risk level for the POS terminal 110, and the node 150/140 authorizes (block 508) the mobile payment transaction based on a combination of the first risk level been generated for the POS terminal 110 and the transaction risk score. In sharp contrast, if the number does not exceed the threshold number, the POS terminal risk score is generated (block 510) to indicate a second risk level, which corresponds to a higher risk of fraud, for the POS terminal 110, and the node 150/140 declines (block 512) the mobile payment transaction based on a combination of the second POS terminal risk score being generated for the POS terminal 110 and the transaction risk score.
[0035] The POS terminal risk score may be generated based on how many different mobile terminals have reported locations during mobile payment transactions through the PUS terminal 120. The POS terminal 120 may be determined to have a lower risk score when it has been used with more than a threshold number of different mobile terminals, which can indicate a lower likelihood of fraudulent use. In one embodiment, each of the mobile payment messages further contains a mobile terminal identifier. The POS terminal risk score is generated based on a number of the mobile payment messages that contain the network address for the POS terminal 120 and further contain geographic locations provided by the mobile terminals that are within a threshold geographic proximity of each other. The POS terminal risk score is further generated based on how many of the number of the mobile payment messages contain mobile terminal identifiers that are different from each other.
A “threshold number of transactions” may be understood to be a relative assessment of whether the number is on one side of the threshold number or on the other side of the threshold number. In Agarwal’s scenarios, being on one side of the threshold number within a given threshold amount of time signifies higher risk of fraud at a POS terminal, at which point a particular mobile payment transaction may be denied (as explained in the cited portion of Agarwal above). Douglas tracks users via mobile devices in an environment with points of sale and Agarwal presents enhanced uses for the type of information that Douglas does or is capable of gathering, including enhanced fraud detection and mitigation. While Douglas and Agarwal do not explicitly disclose that a payment machine may confiscate a payment method within the payment machine when fraud is detected, Charles discloses that a bank card machine may “swallow” the card when fraud is detected (Charles: ¶ 102). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Douglas wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes causing the payment machine to confiscate a payment method within the payment machine in order to facilitate fraud detection and perform mitigating actions, as needed (as suggested in ¶ 34 of Agarwal), while adding a layer of protection against someone fraudulently using a physical payment card (as suggested in ¶ 102 of Charles).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (US 2017/0006429) in view of Agarwal (US 2017/0046706), as applied to claims 7 and 11 above, in view of Powers (US 2010/0051684).
[Claim 12] Douglas does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine the threshold number of transactions based on prior communications with the payment machine regarding the number and the type of occurring transactions at the payment machine. Powers discloses that a previous payment transaction attributed to a payment (e.g., credit or debit) card is compared to a current payment transaction request. Distance between where the two compared transactions occurred and the time period between the transactions are evaluated to determine if the cardholder could feasibly have traveled the distance within the given time period to make both transactions (Powers: ¶¶ 23-35). In other words, determining that two transactions made with the same payment card, but within an infeasible time frame given the distance is a red flag that the payment card might have been and/or is being used fraudulently. The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Douglas wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine the threshold number of transactions based on prior communications with the payment machine regarding the number and the type of occurring transactions at the payment machine in order to facilitate fraud detection and raise alerts in an attempt to prevent and/or mitigate the fraud (as suggested in ¶ 15 of Powers).
Claims 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (US 2017/0006429) in view of Powers (US 2010/0051684).
[Claim 14] Douglas discloses an operational analytics system (abstract) comprising:
a plurality of access point devices configured to receive a wireless signal from the wireless device (¶ 38 – “Beacons/Receivers 203 may be configured to interact with one or more components of path management system 200. In some embodiments, beacons/receivers 203 may be configured to interact with user device 201. For example, beacons/receivers 203 may be configured to detect the presence of and/or communicate with a proximate user device 201. In some aspects, beacons/receivers 203 may comprise one or more beacons, such as Bluetooth low energy beacons, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, wireless transmitters and/or any other type of transmitter configured to provide a signal for detection by user device 201. In various aspects, beacons/receivers 203 may comprise one or more receivers, such as Bluetooth low energy devices, radio frequency identification (RFID) receivers, wireless receivers and/or any other type of receiver configured to receive a signal provided by user device 201. Path management system 200 may be configured based on the assumption that the location of user device 201 indicates the location of user 201A.” The beacons and receivers are examples of an access point device.); and
an electronic controller (fig. 2, ¶ 33 – The system for path management 200 facilitates operations of the invention and includes various system components that may specifically carry out certain operations. “FIG. 2 depicts a schematic illustrating an exemplary system for path management 200 consistent with disclosed embodiments. In some embodiments, the components of path management system 200 are configured to exchange data and instructions to realize the operations discussed above with respect to FIG. 1. In certain aspects user device 201 may be configured to interact with beacons/receivers 203 to generate user data 111. In various aspects, one or more of user device 201 and beacons/receivers 203 may be configured to provide user data 111 over network 207. In some aspects, path management system 205 may be configured to receive user data 111 from one or more of user device 201 and beacons/receivers 203. In certain embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to determine locations for users based on the user data 111. In certain aspects, user data 111 may comprise locations for users. In some embodiments, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine paths for users based on locations for users. In certain aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine one or more path maps. The path maps may indicate collective behavior of users based on aggregated path data for users. Path management unit 205 may be configured to determine one or more of path maps indicating user density and path maps indicating user velocity.”) configured to
receive a signal strength indicator for the wireless device from each of the plurality of access point devices (¶ 52 – “Each beacon may be configured to periodically transmit signals, as described above, such as BLE signals. Each user device may be configured to receive these transmitted signals. In some embodiments, each device may be configured to estimate a distance between the device and each beacon based on the transmitted signals. For example, the received signals may vary in strength depending on a distance between a user device and a beacon. The user device may be configured to estimate a distance between the user device and the beacon based on this signal strength. In certain embodiments, the user device may be configured to indicate discrete categories of signal strength.”; ¶ 53 – “Consistent with disclosed embodiments, in this non-limiting example, path management unit 205 may be configured to calculate distances between user device 201 and the first beacon 311, second beacon 313, and third beacon (not shown). In some embodiments, path management unit 205 may be configured to calculate distances based on a signal indicator associated with the beacon (as described above) and one or more of the range category and received signal strength indication.”),
calculate a device position of the wireless device based on a location of each of the plurality of access point devices and the signal strength indicator for the wireless device received by each of the plurality of access point devices (¶ 71 – “Path management system 200 may be configured to detect a user in step 503, consistent with disclosed embodiments. As described above with respect to FIGS. 2, 3A and 3B, path management system 200 may be configured to periodically receive indications of distance from one or more of user device 201 and beacons/receivers 203. For example, user device 201 may be configured to provide one or more of distance categories, received signal strength indications, estimated distances, and determined user device locations to path management unit 205 based on broadcast beacon signal identifiers. As an additional example, beacons/receivers 203 may be configured to provide one or more of distance categories, received signal strength indications, and estimated distances from user device 201 based on broadcast user device signals. For example, user device 201 may be configured to broadcast signal identifiers. In certain aspects, based on one or more of distance categories, received signal strength indications, and estimated distances, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine locations for user device 205. In various aspects, based on determined and/or received user device locations, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine user paths.”),
determine that the device position is adjacent a known position (¶ 11 – “ In certain aspects, the service location may include one or more of a point of sale, a queue, an access point, and a facility.” A point of sale and/or a queue service location are examples of a predetermined checkout area.; ¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale. Path management system 205 may be configured to provide a path to this secondary point of sale.”).
Douglas determines an amount of time that the wireless device is located within the predetermined area (Douglas: ¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale.”). Douglas also automatically performs at least one mitigation operation when the wireless device has remained at a static position within a predetermined distance of a payment machine (¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale.” Waiting in a queue is deemed to be a relatively “static” position in the sense that the waiting customer has been in the same “waiting” status for a given amount of time.; ¶ 31 – “For example, modification instructions 113 may comprise instructions to create or merge lines, such as checkout lines at a point of sale…” The point of sale is where checkout, i.e., payment, occurs and is, thus, an example of a payment machine. Gleaned from ¶¶ 31 and 68 of Douglas is that a number of open/closed checkout lines at a point of sale (i.e., a payment machine) may be adjusted based on wait times (i.e., people are waiting, are not being productive, are idle, etc. and are, thus, “static” in a sense).).
Douglas does not fully disclose that the electronic controller is configured to:
determine a number of transactions performed by the wireless device while the device position is adjacent the known position, and
automatically perform at least one mitigation operation when the number of transactions exceeds a threshold number while the wireless device is at the device position adjacent the known position and has remained at a static position within a predetermined distance of a payment machine.
In other words, Douglas does not specifically address a number of transactions occurring within the amount of time and a threshold number of transactions have occurred within the predetermined area during the threshold amount of time.
Douglas can open or close registers of a POS, as needed (Douglas: ¶¶ 31, 68) and Powers can decline higher risk transactions (Powers: ¶ 15), thereby suggesting the ability to close a register at a POS in terms of denying service to a customer at a register at a POS. Powers presents a scenario in which too many transactions in relation to a threshold time and distance signifies a higher risk transaction. Powers discloses that a previous payment transaction attributed to a payment (e.g., credit or debit) card is compared to a current payment transaction request. Distance between where the two compared transactions occurred and the time period between the transactions are evaluated to determine if the cardholder could feasibly have traveled the distance within the given time period to make both transactions (Powers: ¶¶ 23-35). In other words, determining that two transactions made with the same payment card, but within an infeasible time frame given the distance is a red flag that the payment card might have been and/or is being used fraudulently. Powers explains that a fuel pump may be a type of point of sale (Powers: ¶¶ 2, 6).
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Douglas such that the electronic controller is configured to:
determine a number of transactions performed by the wireless device while the device position is adjacent the known position, and
automatically perform at least one mitigation operation when the number of transactions exceeds a threshold number while the wireless device is at the device position adjacent the known position and has remained at a static position within a predetermined distance of a payment machine
in order to facilitate fraud detection and perform mitigating actions, as needed (Powers: 15), while addressing the needs of a wider range of customers by addressing fraud at multiple types of points of sale, including a fuel pump (as suggested in ¶¶ 2, 6 of Powers).
[Claim 15] Douglas does not explicitly discloses wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically shutting down a register. Douglas can open or close registers of a POS, as needed (Douglas: ¶¶ 31, 68) and Powers can decline higher risk transactions (Powers: ¶ 15), thereby suggesting the ability to close a register at a POS in terms of denying service to a customer at a register at a POS. Powers presents a scenario in which too many transactions in relation to a threshold time and distance signifies a higher risk transaction. Powers discloses that a previous payment transaction attributed to a payment (e.g., credit or debit) card is compared to a current payment transaction request. Distance between where the two compared transactions occurred and the time period between the transactions are evaluated to determine if the cardholder could feasibly have traveled the distance within the given time period to make both transactions (Powers: ¶¶ 23-35). In other words, determining that two transactions made with the same payment card, but within an infeasible time frame given the distance is a red flag that the payment card might have been and/or is being used fraudulently.
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Douglas wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically shutting down a register in order to facilitate fraud detection and perform mitigating actions, as needed (Powers: 15), while addressing the needs of a wider range of customers by addressing fraud at multiple types of points of sale, including a fuel pump (as suggested in ¶¶ 2, 6 of Powers).
[Claim 16] Douglas does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically shutting down a fuel pump. Douglas can open or close registers of a POS, as needed (Douglas: ¶¶ 31, 68) and Powers can decline higher risk transactions (Powers: ¶ 15), thereby suggesting the ability to close a register at a POS in terms of denying service to a customer at a register at a POS. Powers presents a scenario in which too many transactions in relation to a threshold time and distance signifies a higher risk transaction. Powers discloses that a previous payment transaction attributed to a payment (e.g., credit or debit) card is compared to a current payment transaction request. Distance between where the two compared transactions occurred and the time period between the transactions are evaluated to determine if the cardholder could feasibly have traveled the distance within the given time period to make both transactions (Powers: ¶¶ 23-35). In other words, determining that two transactions made with the same payment card, but within an infeasible time frame given the distance is a red flag that the payment card might have been and/or is being used fraudulently. While Douglas does not explicitly disclose that their points of sale may include a fuel pump, Powers explains that a fuel pump may be a type of point of sale (Powers: ¶¶ 2, 6).
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Douglas wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes automatically shutting down a fuel pump in order to facilitate fraud detection and perform mitigating actions, as needed (Powers: ¶ 15), while addressing the needs of a wider range of customers by addressing fraud at multiple types of points of sale, including a fuel pump (as suggested in ¶¶ 2, 6 of Powers).
[Claim 18] Douglas discloses wherein the electronic controller is configured to communicate with the payment machine about a number and a type of occurring transactions at the payment machine (¶ 31 – “For example, modification instructions 113 may comprise instructions to create or merge lines, such as checkout lines at a point of sale, or a security checkpoint, or a venue such as a concert, amusement park, club, restaurant, or similar line as would be appreciated by one of skill in the art. In certain embodiments, analysis engine 103 may be configured to automatically generate modification instructions 113 comprising instructions to change a staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, modification instructions 113 may indicate that customer service representatives are needed at a specific part of a store, or that additional cashiers are needed at a point of sale.”; ¶ 44 – “Path management unit 205 may be configured to associate paths with metadata, consistent with disclosed embodiments. In certain aspects, paths ma20100051684y be associated with data concerning user 201A. In various aspects, paths may be anonymized. In some aspects, paths may be associated with sales data. For example, paths may be associated with items. For example, path management device 205 may be configured to associate paths with indications of items viewed or purchased by the user associated with the tracked user device. In some embodiments, path management unit 205 may be configured to generate and provide path maps using paths associated with one or more of products, product categories, financial transaction categories (e.g., method of payment, amount of purchase, returns), and users with selected demographic characteristics.”; ¶ 68 – “For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. “; ¶ 72 – “For example, the receivers/beacons 203, device locations, paths, path maps, user density maps, and user velocity maps may be associated with metadata concerning one or more of a user, such as user 201; a product, such as item 405; and an environment, such as environment 209. In some embodiments, path management unit 205 may be configured to generate one or more of path maps, user density maps, and user velocity maps based on metadata associated with one or more of users, paths, receivers/beacons 203, and device locations. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to generate path maps specific to demographic categories of users, products or product categories, types of services or service location (e.g., every path in an environment that traverses a specific point of sale), times or periods of time, or other analytic categories that would be recognized by one of skill in the art.”).
[Claim 19] Douglas does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine the threshold number of transactions based on prior communications with the payment machine regarding the number and the type of occurring transactions at the payment machine. Powers discloses that a previous payment transaction attributed to a payment (e.g., credit or debit) card is compared to a current payment transaction request. Distance between where the two compared transactions occurred and the time period between the transactions are evaluated to determine if the cardholder could feasibly have traveled the distance within the given time period to make both transactions (Powers: ¶¶ 23-35). In other words, determining that two transactions made with the same payment card, but within an infeasible time frame given the distance is a red flag that the payment card might have been and/or is being used fraudulently. The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Douglas wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine the threshold number of transactions based on prior communications with the payment machine regarding the number and the type of occurring transactions at the payment machine in order to facilitate fraud detection and raise alerts in an attempt to prevent and/or mitigate the fraud (as suggested in ¶ 15 of Powers).
[Claim 20] Douglas discloses wherein the known position is a position of the payment machine (¶ 11 – “ In certain aspects, the service location may include one or more of a point of sale, a queue, an access point, and a facility.” A point of sale and/or a queue service location are examples of a predetermined checkout area.; ¶ 68 – “In certain embodiments, the instructions 113 may comprise instructions to change a status of one or more of a point of service, queue, and staffing level of at least part of a service location. For example, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine when the expected wait time at a service location or queue rises above (or falls below) a predetermined threshold. In some aspects, path management unit 205 may be configured to provide instructions to open additional (or close existing) service locations or queues based on this determination. Similarly, path management unit 205 may be configured to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of personnel at a service location, based on a customer density at the service location. For example, path management system 205 may be configured to detect that a queue at a point of sale exceeds a predetermined wait time and provide instructions to open another register at the point of sale. In some embodiments, path management system 205 may be configured to provide instructions to one or more of the users in the queue, for example through a user device, to move to another point of sale. Path management system 205 may be configured to provide a path to this secondary point of sale.”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (US 2017/0006429) in view of Powers (US 2010/0051684), as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Charles et al. (US 2009/0283597).
[Claim 17] Douglas does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes causing a payment machine to confiscate a payment method within the payment machine. Douglas can open or close registers of a POS, as needed (Douglas: ¶¶ 31, 68) and Powers can decline higher risk transactions (Powers: ¶ 15), thereby suggesting the ability to close a register at a POS in terms of denying service to a customer at a register at a POS. Powers presents a scenario in which too many transactions in relation to a threshold time and distance signifies a higher risk transaction. Powers discloses that a previous payment transaction attributed to a payment (e.g., credit or debit) card is compared to a current payment transaction request. Distance between where the two compared transactions occurred and the time period between the transactions are evaluated to determine if the cardholder could feasibly have traveled the distance within the given time period to make both transactions (Powers: ¶¶ 23-35). In other words, determining that two transactions made with the same payment card, but within an infeasible time frame given the distance is a red flag that the payment card might have been and/or is being used fraudulently.
While Douglas and Powers do not explicitly disclose that a payment machine may confiscate a payment method within the payment machine when fraud is detected, Charles discloses that a bank card machine may “swallow” the card when fraud is detected (Charles: ¶ 102). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Douglas wherein the at least one mitigation operation includes causing a payment machine to confiscate a payment method within the payment machine in order to facilitate fraud detection and perform mitigating actions, as needed (Powers: ¶ 15), while addressing the needs of a wider range of customers by addressing fraud at multiple types of points of sale, including a fuel pump (as suggested in ¶¶ 2, 6 of Powers), while adding a layer of protection against someone fraudulently using a physical payment card (as suggested in ¶ 102 of Charles).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A
Prosecution Insights