Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed April 3, 2026. Claims 1-13, 15-18, and 21-23 are pending and examined. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
The devices are mostly conducting data gathering which will not make something patentable subject matter.
The claims are using the very generic data gathering functions of computing devices being able to talk to each other.
Examiner’s note: Claims 15-18 have a second 101 rejection under Bilski which has not been addressed by either amendment or argument.
A “data transaction message” is a transaction being sent as data in a message. Therefore analysis of an individual transaction is the same thing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Utility
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 1-13, 15-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-13, 15-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 15–18) and a machine (claims 1–13, and 21-23) where the machine are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of using transaction information to determine legitimacy status of the data transmission message and the processing of the message based on that status by:
determining a legitimacy status of the data transaction message based at least in part on comparing at least some of the transaction information from the data transaction message with at least some of the user transaction information; and
processing the data transaction message based at least in part on the legitimacy status of the data transaction message.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., using transaction information to determine legitimacy status of the message and the processing of that message based on that status).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: “determining that a received message is a data transaction message; extracting transaction information from the data transaction message; determining whether a user account is associated with the transaction information; extracting, in response to determining the user account is associated with the transaction information, user transaction information associated with the user account;” and “the legitimacy status based at least in part on a comparison of the transaction information from the data transaction message with user transaction information maintained in a user account associated with the mobile device” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming and are data gathering which is considered additional insignificant extra-solution activity. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.);. Independent claim 15 is nearly identical to independent claims 1 and 9 and so the analysis for claim 15 also applies to claims 1 and 9.
Dependent claims 2–8, 10–13, 16–18, and 21-23 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2-4, 8, 13, 14, 16, 21-23 recite limitations that are data gathering which is considered additional insignificant extra-solution activity. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Dependent claims 5, 10, and 17 are substantially similarly and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 9 as they describe the legitimacy status indicates the data transaction message is a fraudulent message in response to the transaction information not being associated with the user account. Dependent claims 6, 11, and 18 are substantially similarly and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as they describe the legitimacy status indicates the data transaction message is a fraudulent message in response to the transaction information not including at least some of the user transaction information of the user account. Dependent claims 7, 12, and 19 are substantially similarly and both recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15 as they describe the legitimacy status indicates the data transaction message is a verified message in response to the transaction information not including at least some of the user transaction information of the user account. This is the type of generic component being used to carry out the abstract idea noted in claim 15.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, these claims are held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. In light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), the Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos provides factors to consider in determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea and is therefore not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Factors weighing toward eligibility include:
Recitation of a machine or transformation (either express or inherent).
The claim is directed toward applying a law of nature.
The claim is more than a mere statement of concept.
Factors weighing against eligibility include:
No recitation of a machine or transformation (either express or inherent).
Insufficient recitation of a machine or transformation.
The claim is not directed to an application of a law of nature.
The claim is a mere statement of a general concept.
An example of a method claim that would not qualify as a statutory process would be a claim that recited purely mental steps. Thus, to qualify as a § 101 statutory process, the claim could positively recite the other statutory class (the thing or product) to which it is tied, for example by identifying the apparatus that accomplishes the method steps, or positively recite the subject matter that is being transformed, for example by identifying the material that is being changed to a different state. Furthermore, the use of a particular machine or transformation of a particular article must involve more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
In light of the factors in the Supreme Court decision, Applicant’s method steps do not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101. The method steps do not include a processor or such that is executing the method. (The processor and memory from claim 9 could fix this particular rejection though not the other 101 rejection.)
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, 5-7, 9-12, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Mattei et al. (U.S. Patent 11,488,170 B1).
As per claim 1 Mattei teaches:
A mobile device, comprising:
at least one module; and
at least one processor (see at least Mattei column 6 line 21 “system 150 comprises processor 132, memory 134,”) that is configured to execute the at least one module to cause the mobile device to:
determine that a received message is a data transaction message; (see at least Mattei abstract “One method includes receiving an authorization request for a payment transaction originating at a merchant,” Since they can process it they can determine what they received.)
extract transaction information from the data transaction message; (see at least Mattei abstract “retrieving transaction data and identifying information associated with the authorization request”)
generate, based at least in part on the transaction information, an authentication request to authenticate the data transaction message; (see at least Mattei column 9 lines 53-column 10 line 16; column 11 lines 6-14 “Turning to FIG. 4, exemplary systems and processes are disclosed for establishing a fraud detection and analytics system for a household. One of the members of a household 55 may purchase a good or service at the merchant 110, either online or in-store, using one of the payment vehicles ( e.g., 104A-B, 108A, or 109A) or device(s) (e.g., 106A-B, 108A, or 109B). Alternatively or additionally, the member(s) of the household may own, individually or collectively, devices 60 106A-B, 108A, or 109B. The merchant 110 may send the authorization request to the processor 132 over a computer network, and the processor may receive this request, as in step 410. The authorization request may be for an online and/or in-store transaction using a payment vehicle and/or a 65 device. The processor 132 may retrieve transaction data and identifying information associated with the transaction from the authorization request before the authorization request is routed to a financial institution 140 (e.g. , step 420). The identifying information may include, for example, personally identifiable information (PII) of an individual associated with the transaction, a device fingerprint, device-specific information, an originating IP address, which may be determined through IP proxy piercing, etc. The processor 132 may further search whether a household fraud detection profile for the retrieved identifying information associated with the transaction exists in a profile database 136 (e.g., as in step 430). If the processor 132 determines that no household profile exists for retrieved identifying information associated with the transaction, the processor may store the transaction data with the rest of the 15 transaction data associated with the payment vehicle and/or device at the merchant 110 (e.g., as in step 450).” and “In an example embodiment, the processor 132 may analyze the online or in-store transaction against the profile data associated with each member of the household as per operation. The processor 132 may send a notification to the financial institution reporting any online or in-store transaction is determines to be fraudulent. The financial institution 140 may decline the online or in-store transaction according to the notification provided from the processor 132 as per operation 446.”)
transmit, over a network, the authentication request to authenticate the data transaction message; (see at least Mattei column 9 lines 61-64 “The merchant 110 may send the authorization request to the processor 132 over a computer network, and the processor may receive this request, as in step 410.”)
receive, over the network and based at least in part on the authentication request, a legitimacy status of the data transaction message; (see at least Mattei column 11 lines 6-14 “In an example embodiment, the processor 132 may analyze the online or in-store transaction against the profile data associated with each member of the household as per operation. The processor 132 may send a notification to the financial institution reporting any online or in-store transaction is determines to be fraudulent. The financial institution 140 may decline the online or in-store transaction according to the notification provided from the processor 132 as per operation 446.”)
the legitimacy status based at least in part on a comparison of the transaction information from the data transaction message with user transaction information maintained in a user account associated with the mobile device; (Mattei abstract “One method includes receiving an authorization request for a payment transaction originating at a merchant, using a first payment vehicle; receiving device information of a first device used in the payment transaction; retrieving transaction data and identifying information associated with the authorization request before the authorization request is routed to a financial institution; searching and determining payment vehicles and devices associated with the individual using the retrieved identifying information; aggregating transaction data associated with the payment vehicles and devices from the transaction database; retrieving reported fraudulent activities pertaining to the payment vehicles and devices; and generating a profile data for the individual according to the identifying information associated with the authorization request, personally identifiable information (PII), the aggregated transaction data, and reported fraudulent activities.” The searching of payment vehicles and devices associated with the individual is comparing transaction information with user account information.) and
process the data transaction message based at least in part on the legitimacy status of the data transaction message. (Mattei column 11 lines 11-14 “determines to be fraudulent. The financial institution 140 may decline the online or in-store transaction according to the notification provided from the processor 132 as per operation 446.”)
As per claim 5 Mattei teaches:
The mobile device of claim 1, wherein the legitimacy status indicates the data transaction message is a fraudulent message in response to the transaction information not including a user account associated with a user of the mobile device. (see at least Mattei column 8 lines 44-48 “The transaction data may comprise at least one of a merchant's 45 ID, transaction location, terminal information, source IP address, date and time of the transaction, device information, transaction amount of the purchase, and payment vehicle information.” The “device information” would cover user account associated with a user of the mobile device.)
As per claim 6 Mattei teaches:
The mobile device of claim 1, wherein the legitimacy status indicates the data transaction message is a fraudulent message in response to the transaction information not including at least some user transaction information of a user account associated with a user of the mobile device. (see at least Mattei column 8 lines 44-48 “The transaction data may comprise at least one of a merchant's 45 ID, transaction location, terminal information, source IP address, date and time of the transaction, device information, transaction amount of the purchase, and payment vehicle information.” The “device information” would cover user account associated with a user of the mobile device.)
As per claim 7 Mattei teaches:
The mobile device of claim 1, wherein the legitimacy status indicates the data transaction message is a verified message in response to the transaction information including at least some user transaction information of a user account associated with a user of the mobile device. (see at least Mattei column 8 lines 44-48 “The transaction data may comprise at least one of a merchant's 45 ID, transaction location, terminal information, source IP address, date and time of the transaction, device information, transaction amount of the purchase, and payment vehicle information.” The “device information” would cover user account associated with a user of the mobile device.)
As per claim 9 Mattei teaches:
A system comprising:
at least one memory; (see at least Mattei column 6 line 21 “system 150 comprises processor 132, memory 134,”) and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (see at least Mattei column 6 line 21 “system 150 comprises processor 132, memory 134,”) and configured to cause the system to:
receive, over a network, an authentication request to authenticate a data transaction message that includes transaction information; (see at least Mattei abstract “One method includes receiving an authorization request for a payment transaction originating at a merchant,” Since they can process it they can determine what they received.)
determine, in response to receiving the authentication request, whether a user account is associated with the transaction information; (see at least Mattei abstract “One method includes receiving an authorization request for a payment transaction originating at a merchant,” Since they can process it they can determine what they received.)
extract, in response to determining the user account is associated with the transaction information, user transaction information associated with the user account; see at least Mattei abstract “retrieving transaction data and identifying information associated with the authorization request”)
generate, based at least in part on comparing at least some of the transaction information from the data transaction message with at least some of the user transaction information, a legitimacy status of the data transaction message; (see at least Mattei column 9 lines 53-column 10 line 16; column 11 lines 6-14 “Turning to FIG. 4, exemplary systems and processes are disclosed for establishing a fraud detection and analytics system for a household. One of the members of a household 55 may purchase a good or service at the merchant 110, either online or in-store, using one of the payment vehicles ( e.g., 104A-B, 108A, or 109A) or device(s) (e.g., 106A-B, 108A, or 109B). Alternatively or additionally, the member(s) of the household may own, individually or collectively, devices 60 106A-B, 108A, or 109B. The merchant 110 may send the authorization request to the processor 132 over a computer network, and the processor may receive this request, as in step 410. The authorization request may be for an online and/or in-store transaction using a payment vehicle and/or a 65 device. The processor 132 may retrieve transaction data and identifying information associated with the transaction from the authorization request before the authorization request is routed to a financial institution 140 (e.g. , step 420). The identifying information may include, for example, personally identifiable information (PII) of an individual associated with the transaction, a device fingerprint, device-specific information, an originating IP address, which may be determined through IP proxy piercing, etc. The processor 132 may further search whether a household fraud detection profile for the retrieved identifying information associated with the transaction exists in a profile database 136 (e.g., as in step 430). If the processor 132 determines that no household profile exists for retrieved identifying information associated with the transaction, the processor may store the transaction data with the rest of the 15 transaction data associated with the payment vehicle and/or device at the merchant 110 (e.g., as in step 450).” and “In an example embodiment, the processor 132 may analyze the online or in-store transaction against the profile data associated with each member of the household as per operation. The processor 132 may send a notification to the financial institution reporting any online or in-store transaction is determines to be fraudulent. The financial institution 140 may decline the online or in-store transaction according to the notification provided from the processor 132 as per operation 446.” Where there is a profile to compare to that is comparing some of the data from the transaction message with at least some user transaction information.) and
transmit, over the network, the legitimacy status of the data transaction message. (see at least Mattei column 11 lines 6-14 “In an example embodiment, the processor 132 may analyze the online or in-store transaction against the profile data associated with each member of the household as per operation. The processor 132 may send a notification to the financial institution reporting any online or in-store transaction is determines to be fraudulent. The financial institution 140 may decline the online or in-store transaction according to the notification provided from the processor 132 as per operation 446.”)
As per claim 10 Mattei teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to generate the legitimacy status to indicate the data transaction message is a fraudulent message in response to determining that the transaction information is not associated with the user account. (see at least Mattei column 8 lines 44-48 “The transaction data may comprise at least one of a merchant's 45 ID, transaction location, terminal information, source IP address, date and time of the transaction, device information, transaction amount of the purchase, and payment vehicle information.” The “device information” would cover user account associated with a user of the mobile device.)
As per claim 11 Mattei teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to generate the legitimacy status to indicate the data transaction message is a fraudulent message in response to determining that the transaction information does not include at least some of the user transaction information. (see at least Mattei column 8 lines 44-48 “The transaction data may comprise at least one of a merchant's 45 ID, transaction location, terminal information, source IP address, date and time of the transaction, device information, transaction amount of the purchase, and payment vehicle information.” The “device information” would cover user account associated with a user of the mobile device.)
As per claim 12 Mattei teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to generate the legitimacy status to indicate the data transaction message is a verified message in response to determining that the transaction information includes at least some of the user transaction information. (see at least Mattei column 8 lines 44-48 “The transaction data may comprise at least one of a merchant's 45 ID, transaction location, terminal information, source IP address, date and time of the transaction, device information, transaction amount of the purchase, and payment vehicle information.” The “device information” would cover user account associated with a user of the mobile device.)
As per claim 15 Mattei teaches:
A method, comprising:
determining that a received message is a data transaction message; (see at least Mattei abstract “One method includes receiving an authorization request for a payment transaction originating at a merchant,” Since they can process it they can determine what they received.)
extracting transaction information from the data transaction message; (see at least Mattei abstract “retrieving transaction data and identifying information associated with the authorization request”)
determining whether a user account is associated with the transaction information; (see at least Mattei column 8 lines 44-48 “The transaction data may comprise at least one of a merchant's 45 ID, transaction location, terminal information, source IP address, date and time of the transaction, device information, transaction amount of the purchase, and payment vehicle information.” The “device information” would cover user account associated with a user of the mobile device.)
extracting, in response to determining the user account is associated with the transaction information, user transaction information associated with the user account; (see at least Mattei abstract “retrieving transaction data and identifying information associated with the authorization request”)
determining a legitimacy status of the data transaction message based at least in part on comparing at least some of the transaction information from the data transaction message with at least some of the user transaction information; (see at least Mattei column 9 lines 53-column 10 line 16; column 11 lines 6-14 “Turning to FIG. 4, exemplary systems and processes are disclosed for establishing a fraud detection and analytics system for a household. One of the members of a household 55 may purchase a good or service at the merchant 110, either online or in-store, using one of the payment vehicles ( e.g., 104A-B, 108A, or 109A) or device(s) (e.g., 106A-B, 108A, or 109B). Alternatively or additionally, the member(s) of the household may own, individually or collectively, devices 60 106A-B, 108A, or 109B. The merchant 110 may send the authorization request to the processor 132 over a computer network, and the processor may receive this request, as in step 410. The authorization request may be for an online and/or in-store transaction using a payment vehicle and/or a 65 device. The processor 132 may retrieve transaction data and identifying information associated with the transaction from the authorization request before the authorization request is routed to a financial institution 140 (e.g. , step 420). The identifying information may include, for example, personally identifiable information (PII) of an individual associated with the transaction, a device fingerprint, device-specific information, an originating IP address, which may be determined through IP proxy piercing, etc. The processor 132 may further search whether a household fraud detection profile for the retrieved identifying information associated with the transaction exists in a profile database 136 (e.g., as in step 430). If the processor 132 determines that no household profile exists for retrieved identifying information associated with the transaction, the processor may store the transaction data with the rest of the 15 transaction data associated with the payment vehicle and/or device at the merchant 110 (e.g., as in step 450).” and “In an example embodiment, the processor 132 may analyze the online or in-store transaction against the profile data associated with each member of the household as per operation. The processor 132 may send a notification to the financial institution reporting any online or in-store transaction is determines to be fraudulent. The financial institution 140 may decline the online or in-store transaction according to the notification provided from the processor 132 as per operation 446.” Where there is a profile to compare to that is comparing some of the data from the transaction message with at least some user transaction information.)
processing the data transaction message based at least in part on the legitimacy status of the data transaction message. (Mattei column 11 lines 11-14 “determines to be fraudulent. The financial institution 140 may decline the online or in-store transaction according to the notification provided from the processor 132 as per operation 446.”)
As per claim 17 Mattei teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the legitimacy status indicates the data transaction message is a fraudulent message in response to the transaction information not being associated with the user account. (see at least Mattei column 8 lines 44-48 “The transaction data may comprise at least one of a merchant's 45 ID, transaction location, terminal information, source IP address, date and time of the transaction, device information, transaction amount of the purchase, and payment vehicle information.” The “device information” would cover user account associated with a user of the mobile device.)
As per claim 18 Mattei teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the legitimacy status indicates the data transaction message is a fraudulent message in response to the transaction information not including at least some of the user transaction information of the user account. (see at least Mattei column 8 lines 44-48 “The transaction data may comprise at least one of a merchant's 45 ID, transaction location, terminal information, source IP address, date and time of the transaction, device information, transaction amount of the purchase, and payment vehicle information.” The “device information” would cover user account associated with a user of the mobile device.)
As per claim 19 Mattei teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the legitimacy status indicates the data transaction message is a verified message in response to the transaction information not including at least some of the user transaction information of the user account. (see at least Mattei column 8 lines 44-48 “The transaction data may comprise at least one of a merchant's 45 ID, transaction location, terminal information, source IP address, date and time of the transaction, device information, transaction amount of the purchase, and payment vehicle information.” The “device information” would cover user account associated with a user of the mobile device.)
As per claim 23 Mattei teaches:
The mobile device of claim 1, wherein to process the data transaction message, the at least one processor is configured to cause the mobile device to suppress the data transaction message in response to the legitimacy status indicating the data transaction message is a fraudulent message by at least one of hiding the data transaction message or moving the data transaction message to an alternative folder. (see at least Mattei column 11 lines 6-14 “The processor 132 may send a notification to the financial institution reporting any online or in-store transaction is determines to be fraudulent. The financial institution 140 may decline the online or in-store transaction according to the notification provided from the processor 132 as per operation 446.” Telling a device to hide or move a message to an alternative folder is just another way of saying decline this transaction we suspect is fraudulent. )
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 of this title, 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 2-4, 8, 13, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattei et al. (U.S. Patent 11,488,170 B1) in view of Pitz et al. (USPG 2017/0357,977 A1).
As per claims 2-4, and 16 while Mattei is not explicit about amending data messages Pitz teaches changing a data message to allow further verification based possible fraud status being indicated and transmitting such a message to a user mobile device. (see at least Pitz abstract “intercepting, from an output of fraudulent activity determination software, an electronic transaction message; reading by a processing device, the intercepted message; detecting, that the received electronic transaction message includes a data field comprising a fraud-related decline code; updating, by the processing device, the received electronic message by replacing the fraud-related decline code with a hold code; generating, based upon the detection of the fraud-related decline code, at least one authentication request message configured to prompt at least one of a point of sale device and a user mobile device that authentication data is to be input by a user; transmitting, by a transmitting device and to the point of sale device, the updated electronic transaction message; and transmitting, by the transmitting device and to at least one of the point of sale device and a user mobile device, the at least one authentication request message”) Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made since it was solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success.
As per claims 8, 14, and 20 while Mattei is not explicit about the kind of message formats that are being used Pitz teaches both push notification and SMS as communication method. (see at least Pitz paragraph 48 “For instance, a user, via the user mobile device 114, may specify a push notification of the mobile application, a short messaging service (SMS), etc. as the communication method. Such communication specifications may be used by the processing server 110 to communicate with user mobile device 114. Other communication methods by which the processing server 110 may communicate with user mobile device 114 may include, for example, an application stored on or accessed by the user mobile device 114, e-mail, telephone, webpage, etc. ”) Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of mobile device communication since it was solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success.
As per claim 13 while Mattei is not explicit about delivering messages to user device associated a user account Pitz teaches sending such messages as an authentication request message. (see at least Pitz abstract “transmitting, by the transmitting device and to at least one of the point of sale device and a user mobile device, the at least one authentication request message.”) Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of using devices for transaction authentication since it was solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattei et al. (U.S. Patent 11,488,170 B1) in view of Parikh et al. (U.S. Patent 12,475,467 B1).
As per claims 21 and 22 while Mattei is not explicit about using optical character recognition on a data transaction message Parikh teaches using such analysis to help prevent fraud by comparing extracted data with stored data about the account. (see at least Parikh column 2 lines 35-58 and column 3 lines 60-65 “Disclosed herein are techniques ("recognition technology") for allowing a user device to extract information, e.g., payment instrument information, using recognition techniques ( e.g., optical character recognition ("OCR"), image recognition, computer vision, voice recognition, or a combination thereof), and for using the extracted information for many purposes, including to link a payment instrument to a user account, to verify a transaction, and/or to prevent fraud. In examples, the process of extracting payment instrument information may be improved by scanning (e.g., via a camera, image capturing device, sensor, or the like) an object, e.g., payment card, a near-field communication (NFC) chip, a Quick Response (QR) code or the like, using various observation angles, orientations, etc. and then comparing the scanned images against multiple reference images 50 to determine if the information extracted from the multiple images corresponds at least to a threshold degree to the reference images and/or other representations of the payment instrument in question. By so doing, techniques described herein may improve the security of digitally 55 generated and stored financial information and reduce the likelihood of fraud in a manner that minimizes or outright eliminates user error and nefarious actors associated with more typical payment instrument input.” “Once this payment card information is extracted from the image data and/or 3D model as described herein, the payment instrument information may be compared to stored data known about the user account at issue and/or known about the payment instrument. Such stored data can also be referred to as "reference data," "stored data," or the like.” Since it is the payment instrument it has to include the payment source or destination as part of what is being compared.) Therefore it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made since it was solving a known problem in a known way with an expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 from the examiner should be directed to Scott S. Trotter, whose telephone number is 571-272-7366. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, M-F.
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, Matthew Gart, can be reached on 571-272-3955.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are as follows:
(571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”)
(571) 273-7366 (Draft Communications)
/SCOTT S TROTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights