Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s initially filed application dated 6/28/2024, claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined in this reply
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-20 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
In regard to claims 1-20 as indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Representative independent claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method for providing automatic transaction issue resolution, the method comprising: receiving, by communications hardware, a transaction attempt at a point-of-sale (POS), wherein the transaction attempt is associated with a payment account of a user; and determining, by smart mobile wallet management circuitry, whether the transaction attempt should be declined, wherein determining whether the transaction attempt should be declined comprises: determining, by the smart mobile wallet management circuitry, a first transaction declination reason associated with the transaction attempt, wherein the first transaction declination reason indicates a reason that the transaction attempt should be declined, determining, by the smart mobile wallet management circuitry, whether the first transaction declination reason is comprised in a transaction declination exception set associated with the payment account, and in response to determining that the first transaction declination reason is comprised in the transaction declination exception set: authenticating, by user authentication circuitry, the user based on a mobile driver’s license (mDL) associated with the user; and in response to successfully authenticating the user based on the mDL, allowing, by the smart mobile wallet management circuitry, the transaction attempt.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “communications hardware, smart mobile wallet management circuitry, user authentication circuitry, POS terminal, and a user device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “communications hardware, smart mobile wallet management circuitry, user authentication circuitry, POS terminal, and a user device”, the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 5 additional elements – “communications hardware, smart mobile wallet management circuitry, user authentication circuitry, POS terminal, and a user device”. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “communications hardware, smart mobile wallet management circuitry, user authentication circuitry, POS terminal, and a user device” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “communications hardware, smart mobile wallet management circuitry, user authentication circuitry, POS terminal, and a user device” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 9-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2024/0046272 A1 to Benkreira (“Benkreira”), in view of Unites States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0346122 A1 to Prabhakar (“Prabhakar”)
In regards to claims 1, 12, and 17, Benkreira discloses the following limitations:
A method for providing automatic transaction issue resolution, the method comprising: receiving, by communications hardware, a transaction attempt at a point-of-sale (POS), wherein the transaction attempt is associated with a payment account of a user; and (see at least Benkreira ¶ 0121)
determining, by smart mobile wallet management circuitry, whether the transaction attempt should be declined, wherein determining whether the transaction attempt should be declined comprises: determining, by the smart mobile wallet management circuitry, a first transaction declination reason associated with the transaction attempt, wherein the first transaction declination reason indicates a reason that the transaction attempt should be declined, (Benkreira discloses a system and method by which a reason to approve/decline a transaction based on an exception (limits) is provided, if the exception is prompted, the user is authenticated/verified by location and device and the transaction can be performed. see at least Benkreira Figures 5-6 and ¶¶ 0075, 0100 and 0114)
determining, by the smart mobile wallet management circuitry, whether the first transaction declination reason is comprised in a transaction declination exception set associated with the payment account, and in response to determining that the first transaction declination reason is comprised in the transaction declination exception set: (Benkreira discloses an exception set (limits) for transactions that require user authorization to override and are authenticated by user location and device. See at least Benkreira ¶¶ 0100-0101 and 0114)
authenticating, by user authentication circuitry, the user (see at least Benkreira ¶ 0107)
in response to successfully authenticating the user (see at least Benkreira ¶ 0107)
Benkreira does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
authenticating the user based on a mobile driver’s license (mDL) associated with the user,
The Examiner provides Prabhakar to teach the following limitations:
authenticating the user based on a mobile driver’s license (mDL) associated with the user, (Prabhakar teaches a system and method of authenticating a user using an mDL for use in POS transactions. See at least ¶ 0008)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Benkreira the teachings of Prabhakar to increase the security strength of the transaction by using the biometric security included with the mDL for authentication, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claims 2, 13, and 18, the Combination discloses the following limitations:
wherein authenticating the user further comprises: determining, by the smart mobile wallet management circuitry, whether the user is at a location of the POS associated with the transaction attempt; and in response to determining that the user is at the location of POS, authenticating, by the user authentication circuitry, the user. (see at least Benkreira Figure 6, and ¶¶ 0015, 0045, 0103-0104, and 0107)
In regards to claims 5, 15, and 20, the Combination discloses the following limitations:
wherein determining whether the user is at the location of the POS associated with the transaction attempt further comprises: determining, by the smart mobile wallet management circuitry, a first location of a POS terminal associated with the POS, wherein the first location of the POS terminal is determined based on first global positioning system (GPS) coordinates associated with the POS terminal; determining, by the smart mobile wallet management circuitry, a second location of the user, wherein the second location of the user is determined based on second GPS coordinates associated with a user device associated with the user at a time associated with the transaction attempt; determining, by the smart mobile wallet management circuitry, whether the first location of the POS terminal and the second location of the user satisfy a predetermined distance threshold; and in response to determining that the first location of the POS terminal and the second location of the user satisfy the predetermined distance threshold, verifying that the user is at the location of the POS associated with the transaction attempt. (see at least Benkreira Figure 6, and ¶¶ 0015, 0045, 0103-0104, and 0107)
In regards to claims 7, the Combination discloses the following limitations:
providing, by the communications hardware, a transaction declination notification detailing the first transaction declination reason to one or more of a POS terminal associated with the transaction attempt, a user device associated with the user, or a smart mobile wallet associated with the user. (see at least Benkreira ¶ 0100)
In regards to claims 9, the Combination discloses the following:
wherein authenticating the user based on the mDL further comprises: receiving, by the communications hardware and based on a determination that the first transaction declination reason is comprised in the transaction declination exception set, an mDL authentication request, wherein the mDL authentication request is a request to authenticate the mDL associated with the user; (see at least Prabhakar ¶ 0022)
generating, by mDL management circuitry and based on the mDL authentication request, a digital token; (see at least Prabhakar ¶ 0058)
transmitting, by the communications hardware, the digital token to an issuing authority (IA) system associated with an IA that provisioned the mDL to the user; (see at least Prabhakar ¶ 0128
receiving, by the communications hardware and from the IA system, an mDL validity response, wherein the mDL validity response is generated based on the digital token, and wherein the mDL validity response indicates verified credential data associated with the mDL; and authenticating, by the user authentication circuitry, the user based on the mDL validity response. (see at least Prabhakar ¶ 0056)
In regards to claims 10, the Combination discloses the following limitations:
wherein the mDL authentication request comprises one or more of user identification data, desired credential data associated with the mDL, or user attribute data associated with the user. (see at least Prakhabar ¶ 0022)
In regards to claims 11, the Combination discloses the following limitations:
wherein the mDL validity response further indicates verified user device identification data related to a user device associated with the user. (see at least Benkreira ¶ 0101)
Claims 3-4, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2024/0046272 A1 to Benkreira (“Benkreira”), in view of Unites States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0346122 A1 to Prabhakar (“Prabhakar”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0324616 A1 to Proietti (“Proietti”)
In regards to claims 3, 14, and 19, the Combination does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein determining whether the user is at a location of the POS associated with the transaction attempt further comprises: providing, by the communications hardware, user location verification indicia to a POS terminal associated with the POS; and receiving, by the communications hardware, an affirmative user location acknowledgement from a user device associated with the user, wherein the affirmative user location acknowledgement is generated in response to an interaction with the user location verification indicia by the user device, and wherein the affirmative user location acknowledgement indicates that the user is at a location of the POS terminal.
The Examiner provides Proietti to teach the following limitations:
wherein determining whether the user is at a location of the POS associated with the transaction attempt further comprises: providing, by the communications hardware, user location verification indicia to a POS terminal associated with the POS; and receiving, by the communications hardware, an affirmative user location acknowledgement from a user device associated with the user, wherein the affirmative user location acknowledgement is generated in response to an interaction with the user location verification indicia by the user device, and wherein the affirmative user location acknowledgement indicates that the user is at a location of the POS terminal. (Proietti teaches a system and method of providing access to a service based on confirming a user is at a location by scanning an indicia provided by a merchant. See at least Proietti Figure 2B and ¶ 0039-0040)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of the Combination of Benkreira and Prabhakar the teachings of Proietti to allow for multiple and convenient methods of location determination of a user, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
In regards to claims 4, the Combination further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the affirmative user location acknowledgement comprises one or more portions of mDL data associated with the mDL associated with the user. (see at least Prakhabar ¶ 0022)
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2024/0046272 A1 to Benkreira (“Benkreira”), in view of Unites States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0346122 A1 to Prabhakar (“Prabhakar”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0245635 A1 to Haque (“Haque”)
In regards to claims 6 and 16, the Combination does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the transaction declination exception set comprises a set of excusable transaction declination reasons, and wherein the set of excusable transaction declination reasons comprises one or more of an unresolved payment method suspension, a premature payment method closure, an incorrect transaction fraud analysis, or an invalid payment method status associated with the payment account.
The Examiner provides Haque to teach the following limitations:
wherein the transaction declination exception set comprises a set of excusable transaction declination reasons, and wherein the set of excusable transaction declination reasons comprises one or more of an unresolved payment method suspension, a premature payment method closure, an incorrect transaction fraud analysis, or an invalid payment method status associated with the payment account. (Haque teaches a system and method by which the transaction system has a set of exceptions (possible fraud, soft declines, other failures) that when detected are then retried based on likely outcomes and end user authentication. See at least Haque ¶¶ 0061-0062 and 0068-0069)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Benkreira the teachings of Haque in order to provide more intelligent and selective retry attempts based on failure (Haque ¶ 0003), and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2024/0046272 A1 to Benkreira (“Benkreira”), in view of Unites States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0346122 A1 to Prabhakar (“Prabhakar”), in view of Official Notice.
In regards to claims 8, the Combination discloses the following limitations:
determining, by the smart mobile wallet management circuitry, if the payment account is linked to a smart mobile wallet associated with the user; (see at least Benkreira ¶¶ 0052 and 0121)
the Combination does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
receiving, by the communications hardware and in response to determining that the payment account is not linked to the smart mobile wallet, payment account data associated with the payment account from a user device associated with the user; and linking, by the smart mobile wallet management circuitry, the payment account to the smart mobile wallet such that one or more transaction attempts associated with the payment account are facilitated via the smart mobile wallet.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to be able to add transaction/payment accounts to a smart mobile wallet for use in transactions by the smart mobile wallet. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of the Combination the teachings of Official Notice since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627