Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 3rd of September 2024.
Claims 1-20 were cancelled.
Claims 21-40 were newly added.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 10/07/2024 and 03/06/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
First of all, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claim 21, the claim recites an abstract idea of
“…obtain one or more sensory inputs as at least one feature set from the transaction device, wherein the at least one feature set is stored in the transaction device; obtain an identifier from the transaction device, the identifier identifying historical data associated with the individual, and map the at least one feature set against the historical data to facilitate the P0S device to perform at least one action related to the transaction device.” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites a commercial or legal interactions, namely performing a transaction using POS and transaction device. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components/processes (e.g., POS device, communication circuitry, transaction device, processors, memory, machine learning technique). “We conclude that claim 1 is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery” rather than “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components/processes (e.g., POS device, communication circuitry, transaction device, processors, memory, machine learning technique) to receive/transmit/map(store) data (extra-solution activities) and perform the abstract idea mentioned above. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The additional elements (e.g., POS device, communication circuitry, transaction device, processors, memory, machine learning technique) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 - (e.g., POS device, communication circuitry, transaction device, processors, memory, machine learning technique) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Again, the insignificant extra-solution activities mentioned above were re-evaluated in step 2B. The limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the courts found sending/receiving/mapping(storing) of data to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Thus again, claims were not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claim 32.
Dependent claims 22-31 and 33-40 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claim 22, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the historical data comprises a plurality of clusters.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 23, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the plurality of clusters is provided to the POS device via download from one or more servers associated with at least one entity involved in prevention of fraudulent transactions.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 24, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein mapping the at least one feature set comprises mapping the at least one feature set to at least one cluster position of the plurality of clusters.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 25, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…initiate at least one second factor authentication process to establish that the individual transacting with the POS device is a known owner of the transaction device when the at least one feature set does not correspond to the historical data.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 26, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the at least one second factor authentication process comprises generating an alert to a financial service.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 27, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…perform a fraud determination based on the mapping; and approve or deny the transaction based on the fraud determination.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 28, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…inputs comprise one or more of: a. features of the transaction device including one or more dimensions, name, material or color of the transaction device, or any combination thereof; b. location or movement of the transaction device, or any combination thereof; c. biometric or other information regarding the individual using the transaction device; ord. any combination thereof.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 29, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…inputs are transformed, using a machine learning technique, into the at least one feature set having a format configured for comparison against the historical data.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 30, the recited limitations of this claim merely further defined the generic computer component “transaction device” as smartphone running a transaction application. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 31, the recited limitations of this claim merely further defined the generic computer component “smartphone” as that “…receives the one or more sensory inputs, utilizes a machine learning algorithm to generate the at least one feature set from the one or more sensory inputs; and hashes the at least one feature set to obtain an expected cluster specific to the individual associated with the smartphone.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 33, the additional limitations of this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites “…transmit the at least one feature set to the POS device; transmit an identifier to the POS device, the identifier identifying historical data associated with the individual.” The limitation of this claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps amount to no more than mere data transmitting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
For claim 34, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…identify, using the identifier, the historical data; and map the at least one feature set against the historical data.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 35, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…perform a fraud determination based on the mapping; and approve or deny the transaction based on the fraud determination.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 36, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the historical data comprises a plurality of clusters.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 37, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…wherein the plurality of clusters is provided to the POS device via download from one or more servers associated with at least one entity involved in the prevention of fraudulent transactions.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 38, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…inputs comprise one or more of: a. features of the transaction device including one or more dimensions, name, material or color of the transaction device, or any combination thereof; b. location or movement of the transaction device, or any combination thereof; c. biometric or other information regarding the individual using the transaction device; or d. any combination thereof.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 39, the recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This claim further adds, “…inputs are transformed, using a machine learning technique, into the at least one feature set having a format configured for comparison against the historical data.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (e.g., machine learning). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claim that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 40, the recited limitations of this claim merely further defined the generic computer component “transaction device” as “smartphone running a transaction application, the smartphone receiving the one or more sensory inputs are transformed, utilizing a machine learning algorithm to generate the at least one feature set from the one or more sensory inputs; and hashing the at least one feature set to obtain an expected cluster specific to the individual associated with the smartphone.” The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fail to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
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.
Claims 32-34, 38, and 39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jamkhedkar et al. (hereinafter “Jamkhedkar”); (US 2017/0140350 A1).
As per Claim 32:
Jamkhedkar as shown discloses the following limitations:
A transactional device comprising: at least one sensor configured to acquire one or more sensory inputs associated with an individual in possession of the transaction device; a communication circuitry configured to communicate with a point-of-service (POS) device; one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable non-transitory memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors, upon initiation of a transaction by the individual with the POS device, to: (See at least Fig. 1, Item 110, and related text)
obtain the one or more sensory inputs; and store the one or more sensory inputs as at least one feature set in the at least one computer-readable non-transitory memory. (See at least Paragraph 0018, “...The POS device…BLE or Bluetooth communications, or other data entry mechanism...")
As per Claim 33:
Furthermore, Jamkhedkar discloses the following limitations:
further cause the one or more processors to: transmit the at least one feature set to the POS device; transmit an identifier to the POS device, the identifier identifying historical data associated with the individual. (See at least Paragraph 0038, “…Merchant device may further include database….identifiers such as operating system registry entries…Identifiers in database may be used for payment/user/device authentication...")
As per Claim 34:
Furthermore, Jamkhedkar discloses the following limitations:
identify, using the identifier, the historical data; (See at least Paragraph 0038, “…Merchant device may further include database….identifiers such as operating system registry entries…Identifiers in database may be used for payment/user/device authentication...")
and map the at least one feature set against the historical data. (See at least Paragraph 0012-0013, “...may provide one or more software developments kits (SDK) and/or plugins…SDK that allows customization and use of the payment provider to users...")
As per Claim 38:
Furthermore, Jamkhedkar discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more sensory inputs comprise one or more of: a. features of the transaction device including one or more dimensions, name, material or color of the transaction device, or any combination thereof; b. location or movement of the transaction device, or any combination thereof; c. biometric or other information regarding the individual using the transaction device; or d. any combination thereof. (See at least Paragraph 0017, “...The application may execute on a communication device…a mobile device…the user may communicate information for tenders…the application may interface with the digital wallet cloud in order to receive tokens that identify funding source, or other identification data…The tokens may be generated prior to transaction...")
As per Claim 39:
Furthermore, Jamkhedkar discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more sensory inputs are transformed, using a machine learning technique, into the at least one feature set having a format configured for comparison against the historical data. (See at least Paragraph 0035, “...Sales application may be adjustable to accept various data input protocols...")
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-22, 24, 27-31, 35, 36, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamkhedkar et al. (hereinafter “Jamkhedkar”); (US 2017/0140350 A1) in view of Monaco et al. (hereinafter "Monaco"); (US 10,937,050 B2).
As per Claim 21:
Jamkhedkar as shown discloses the following limitations:
obtain one or more sensory inputs as at least one feature set from the transaction device, wherein the at least one feature set is stored in the transaction device; obtain an identifier from the transaction device, the identifier identifying historical data associated with the individual, (See at least Paragraph 0017, “...The application may execute on a communication device…a mobile device…the user may communicate information for tenders…the application may interface with the digital wallet cloud in order to receive tokens that identify funding source, or other identification data…The tokens may be generated prior to transaction...")
map the at least one feature set against the historical data to facilitate the P0S device to perform at least one action related to the transaction device. (See at least Paragraph 0012-0013, “...may provide one or more software developments kits (SDK) and/or plugins…SDK that allows customization and use of the payment provider to users...")
However, Jamkhedkar specifically does not mention the following limitation. But Monaco discloses the following limitations:
the historical data being stored in the at least one computer-readable non-transitory memory and established by applying at least one machine learning technique to historical card-usage information of the individual; and (See at least Column 9, Lines 44-52, “...The machine learning may learn based on historical transaction data...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the interactive point-of-sale system of Jamkhedkar the ability to use the historical data learned by machine learning model as taught by Monaco 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.
As per Claim 22:
Combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Furthermore, Monaco discloses the following limitations:
wherein the historical data comprises a plurality of clusters. (See at least Column 9, Lines 44-52, “...The historical transaction may include transaction data associated with a specific customer, specific payment instrument, specific location...", associations = clusters)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the interactive point-of-sale system of Jamkhedkar the ability to use the historical data learned by machine learning model as taught by Monaco 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.
As per Claim 24:
Combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Furthermore, Jamkhedkar discloses the following limitations:
wherein mapping the at least one feature set comprises mapping the at least one feature set to at least one cluster position of the plurality of clusters. (See at least Paragraph 0033, “...may correspond to a flexible framework application to provide various shopping features, which may include item advertisement…to the user...", where the feature (e.g., advertisement) is set for specific customer)
As per Claim 27:
Combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Furthermore, Monaco discloses the following limitations:
perform a fraud determination based on the mapping; and (See at least Column 2, Lines 7-18, “...mitigating fraud...")
approve or deny the transaction based on the fraud determination. (See at least Column 10, Lines 47-67, “...system may provide output (e.g., authorization decision)…POS system may correspond to approval or rejection of a purchase...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the interactive point-of-sale system of Jamkhedkar the ability to approve or deny the transaction based on the fraud determination as taught by Monaco 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.
As per Claim 28:
Combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Furthermore, Jamkhedkar discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more sensory inputs comprise one or more of: a. features of the transaction device including one or more dimensions, name, material or color of the transaction device, or any combination thereof; b. location or movement of the transaction device, or any combination thereof; c. biometric or other information regarding the individual using the transaction device; or d. any combination thereof. (See at least Paragraph 0017, “...The application may execute on a communication device…a mobile device…the user may communicate information for tenders…the application may interface with the digital wallet cloud in order to receive tokens that identify funding source, or other identification data…The tokens may be generated prior to transaction...")
As per Claim 29:
Combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Furthermore, Jamkhedkar discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more sensory inputs are transformed, using a machine learning technique, into the at least one feature set having a format configured for comparison against the historical data. (See at least Paragraph 0035, “...Sales application may be adjustable to accept various data input protocols...")
As per Claim 30:
Combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Furthermore, Jamkhedkar discloses the following limitations:
wherein transaction device is a smartphone running a transaction application. (See at least Paragraph 0017, “...digital wallet and/or payment application may allow the user to perform actions...")
As per Claim 31:
Combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Furthermore, Monaco discloses the following limitations:
wherein the smartphone receives the one or more sensory inputs, utilizes a machine learning algorithm to generate the at least one feature set from the one or more sensory inputs; and hashes the at least one feature set to obtain an expected cluster specific to the individual associated with the smartphone. (See at least Column 9, Lines 44-61, “...The machine learning algorithm, may learn based on differences between future transaction data expected, to be captured by a POS terminal and transaction data actually captured by the POS terminal. A machine learning algorithm may determine a predicted attribute that is specific to a POS terminal...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the interactive point-of-sale system of Jamkhedkar the ability to generate a predicted attribute using machine learning as taught by Monaco 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.
As per Claim 35:
Jamkhedkar discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. However, Jamkhedkar does not disclose the following limitation. But Cunningham discloses the following limitations:
wherein the POS device is configured to: perform a fraud determination based on the mapping; and (See at least Column 2, Lines 7-18, “...mitigating fraud...")
approve or deny the transaction based on the fraud determination. (See at least Column 10, Lines 47-67, “...system may provide output (e.g., authorization decision)…POS system may correspond to approval or rejection of a purchase...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the interactive point-of-sale system of Jamkhedkar the ability to approve or deny the transaction based on the fraud determination as taught by Monaco 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.
As per Claim 36:
Jamkhedkar discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. However, Jamkhedkar does not disclose the following limitation. But Monaco discloses the following limitations:
wherein the historical data comprises a plurality of clusters. (See at least Column 9, Lines 44-52, “...The historical transaction may include transaction data associated with a specific customer, specific payment instrument, specific location...", associations = clusters)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the interactive point-of-sale system of Jamkhedkar the ability to use the historical data learned by machine learning model as taught by Monaco 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.
As per Claim 40:
Jamkhedkar discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. However, Jamkhedkar does not disclose the following limitation. But Monaco discloses the following limitations:
wherein the transaction device is a smartphone running a transaction application, the smartphone receiving the one or more sensory inputs are transformed, utilizing a machine learning algorithm to generate the at least one feature set from the one or more sensory inputs; and hashing the at least one feature set to obtain an expected cluster specific to the individual associated with the smartphone. (See at least Column 9, Lines 44-61, “...The machine learning algorithm, may learn based on differences between future transaction data expected, to be captured by a POS terminal and transaction data actually captured by the POS terminal. A machine learning algorithm may determine a predicted attribute that is specific to a POS terminal...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the interactive point-of-sale system of Jamkhedkar the ability to generate a predicted attribute using machine learning as taught by Monaco 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.
Claims 23 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Jamkhedkar and Monaco in further view of Gerard et al. (hereinafter “Gerard”); (US 2019/0065874 A1).
As per Claim 23:
Combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above.
However, combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco does not disclose the following limitation. But, Gerard discloses the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of clusters is provided to the POS device via download from one or more servers associated with at least one entity involved in prevention of fraudulent transactions. (See at least Paragraph 0025, “...POS device may also have source server plugin downloaded thereto such that, even with a live transaction…user is required to respond to fraud prevention notification by generating, using device ...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the interactive point-of-sale system of Jamkhedkar the ability to download fraud prevention plugin as taught by Gerard 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.
As per Claim 37:
Combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above.
However, combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco does not disclose the following limitation. But, Gerard discloses the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of clusters is provided to the POS device via download from one or more servers associated with at least one entity involved in the prevention of fraudulent transactions. (See at least Paragraph 0025, “...POS device may also have source server plugin downloaded thereto such that, even with a live transaction…user is required to respond to fraud prevention notification by generating, using device ...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the interactive point-of-sale system of Jamkhedkar the ability to download fraud prevention plugin as taught by Gerard 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.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Jamkhedkar and Monaco in further view of Cunningham et al. (hereinafter “Cunningham”); (US 2013/0278425 A1).
As per Claim 25:
Combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above.
However, combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco does not disclose the following limitation. But, Cunningham discloses the following limitations:
initiate at least one second factor authentication process to establish that the individual transacting with the POS device is a known owner of the transaction device when the at least one feature set does not correspond to the historical data. (See at least Paragraph 0028, “...use of first and second factors for authentication purposes at the POS checkout system...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the interactive point-of-sale system of Jamkhedkar the ability to use second factor authentication process as taught by Cunningham 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.
As per Claim 26:
Combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above.
However, combination of Jamkhedkar and Monaco does not disclose the following limitation. But, Cunningham discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one second factor authentication process comprises generating an alert to a financial service. (See at least Paragraph 0038, “...automatically generates visual and/or audible security alerts (i.e. messages)...")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the interactive point-of-sale system of Jamkhedkar the ability to use second factor authentication alerts as taught by Cunningham 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 EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 9-5.
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. 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.
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 02/13/2026