DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 7/22/2024.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered in this office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. US12045824B2 (S System and method for simplifying fraud detection in real-time payment transactions from trusted accounts). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claim 1 of the instant application is broader than and fully encompasses the species claimed in claim 1 of Patent US12045824B2, in which they have common limitations and the same inventive entity. The narrower scope of claim 1 of the Patent No. US12045824B2 anticipates the broader scope of claim 1 of the instant application because a species always anticipates a genus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove or add the additional limitations in the patents/co-pending applications above to result in the instant claims.
Claim 1 of the Instant application
Claim 1 of Patent No. US12045824B2
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions, that when run on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions, that when run on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform:
receiving, through an electronic network, a payment authorization from a sender financial institution and on behalf of a sender;
receiving a payment authorization, through a network, from a sender financial institution, wherein:
the payment authorization comprises a payment amount, a recipient account identifier for a recipient account, and sender information associated with a sender for the payment authorization;
the recipient account is maintained by a recipient financial institution;
obtaining a sender status of the sender based on sender information of the sender associated with the payment authorization, comprising:
obtaining, in real-time after receiving the payment authorization, a sender status based on the sender information, comprising:
determining a sender record of one or more sender records of preapproved senders is associated with the sender, such that the send status is preauthorized, comprising:
using fuzzy logic to determine an associated sender record of one or more sender records in a preapproved sender database that matches the sender information based on a respective overall similarity measurement between the sender information and one or more of the one or more sender records, comprising:
determining first respective similarity measurements between non-numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records;
determining, via a linguistic interpreter of the fuzzy logic, first respective similarity measurements between corresponding non-numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more of the one or more sender records;
determining second respective similarity measurements between numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records;
determining, via a mathematical module of the fuzzy logic, second respective similarity measurements between corresponding numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more of the one or more sender records;
determining, via the fuzzy logic, the respective overall similarity measurement for the one or more of the one or more sender records based on the first respective similarity measurements and the second respective similarity measurements for the one or more of the one or more sender records; and when the associated sender record matching the sender information is found, determining that the sender status is preauthorized;
when the sender status is preauthorized:
instructing, through the electronic network, a recipient financial institution to bypass a transaction fraud detection mechanism associated with the sender;
when the sender status is preauthorized, instructing, through the network and in real-time after obtaining the sender status, the recipient financial institution to bypass a transaction fraud detection mechanism associated with the sender; and
instructing, through the electronic network, the recipient financial institution to post a payment amount to a recipient account at the recipient financial institution.
instructing, through the network, the recipient financial institution to post the payment amount to the recipient account in real-time.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, Claims 1-10 are drawn to system claims; claim 11-20 are drawn to method claims, which are all within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process).
Independent claim 1 recites: (claims 11 being similar in scope):
Claim 1:
receiving, through an electronic network, a payment authorization from a sender financial institution and on behalf of a sender;
obtaining a sender status of the sender based on sender information of the sender associated with the payment authorization, comprising:
determining a sender record of one or more sender records of preapproved senders is associated with the sender, such that the send status is preauthorized, comprising:
determining first respective similarity measurements between non-numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records; and
determining second respective similarity measurements between numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records; and
when the sender status is preauthorized:
instructing, through the electronic network, a recipient financial institution to bypass a transaction fraud detection mechanism associated with the sender; and
instructing, through the electronic network, the recipient financial institution to post a payment amount to a recipient account at the recipient financial institution.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers; 1) fundamental economic principles by mitigating risk; 2) commercial interaction by business relations under the Certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea, recited above, includes: receiving a payment authorization from a sender financial institution and on behalf of a sender; obtaining a sender status of the sender based on sender information of the sender associated with the payment authorization, comprising: determining a sender record of one or more sender records of preapproved senders is associated with the sender; instructing, through the electronic network, the recipient financial institution to post a payment amount to a recipient account at the recipient financial institution. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations: 1) fundamental economic principles by mitigating risk; 2) commercial interaction by business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the Certain methods of organizing human activity, grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The recited computing elements (claim 1: one or more processors; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media) are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing element performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, since it amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The other additional positive element(s): “determining first respective similarity measurements between non-numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records; and
determining second respective similarity measurements between numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records; instructing, through the electronic network, a recipient financial institution to bypass a transaction fraud detection mechanism associated with the sender” in claim 1, which amounts to linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) or simply “applying it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements are simply linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
Claims 2-10 are further directed to additional abstract ideas because the steps performed are simply narrowing the scope of the abstract idea of claim 1 since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. For example, claim 2 further describes determining sender status being not preauthorized if there is no sender record; claim 3 describes associating sender record to sender public key; claim 4 on determining what would happen when an overall similarity measurement between sender and the sender record is not less than a predetermined threshold score; claim 5 describes transmitting the overall similarity measurement of the sender to the recipient financial institution; claim 6 describes instructing the recipient financial institution to bypass the transaction fraud detection mechanism; claim 7 on determining a recipient verification score and reporting an error message if it is below a predetermined threshold score; claim 8 describes the user record maintained by the system; claim 9 on determining the recipient verification score comprises determining a similarity measurement between the recipient information and the user record; claim 10 describes receiving a recipient verification result based on the recipient account identifier and the recipient information, etc; which all of the limitation are narrowing the steps performed in claim 1.
The other dependent claims, claim 12-20 are similar in scope to the claim 2-10 are also rejected for the same reasons provided above.
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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 1, 4-6, 10, 11, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Kimberg et al. (US20160247134A1) in view of Mossoba et al. (US10521837B1), and further in view of Kumar (US11055727B1).
With respect to claim 1 and 11
Kimberg teaches the limitations of:
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions, that when run on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform ([0006]):
receiving, through an electronic network, a payment authorization from a sender financial institution and on behalf of a sender ([0025], the issuer bank transmits a payment authorization message back to the disbursement computing device. The payment authorization message indicates that the commercial disbursement financial account has a balance that is at least equal to the disbursement amount. In other words, the issuer bank communicates to the disbursement computing device that the funds transfer may proceed. In one embodiment, the payment authorization message is formatted as a network message and is transmitted through the payment processing network. The payment authorization message may include the disbursement amount, the payor identifier, and/or the payee identifier…; [0024], The issuer bank automatically processes the purchase authorization request message to validate that the commercial disbursement financial account associated with the payor has sufficient funds to complete the funds transfer in the disbursement amount.);
instructing, through the electronic network, the recipient financial institution to post a payment amount to a recipient account at the recipient financial institution ([0091], The above-described embodiments of a method and system for transmitting disbursements from a commercial financial account enable real-time disbursements from a payor to a payee. More specifically, the methods and systems enable larger amounts of funds and/or greater number of disbursements to be transferred from a payor's financial account to a payee's financial account with instant credit to the payee (the beneficiary). The account balance verification processes implemented by the method and system described herein enables banks to control the flow of disbursements and ensure that the payor has sufficient funds to cover the disbursements; see also [0027], The disbursement computing device utilizes the payee identifier to identify the payee financial account maintained at the payee bank (e.g., using a lookup table that maps the payee identifier to a PAN of the payee's financial account), such that the disbursement computing device accurately routes the payment authorization to the payee bank.)
Kimberg does not explicitly disclose, but Mossoba teaches:
obtaining a sender status of the sender based on sender information of the sender associated with the payment authorization, comprising: (see col.11 ln13-ln21, the authorization platform may analyze and/or obtain account information associated with the account used in the transaction. Such account information may identify a standing of the account (e.g., in good standing, on hold, suspended, and/or the like), information indicating balances of the account, information indicating credit limits of the account, information indicating a credit history and/or credit score associated with the account, and/or the like.);
when the sender status is preauthorized:
instructing, through the electronic network, a recipient financial institution to bypass a transaction fraud detection mechanism associated with the sender (see col.9 ln17-ln30, In some implementations, the annotation may serve as an authorization flag to indicate that a transaction involving the product may be preapproved. In such cases, the transaction may be preapproved in that the authorization platform may bypass one or more examinations of a fraud analysis of the transaction. For example, the authorization platform may bypass an examination of whether the transaction is fraudulent based on the location of the purchase, an examination of whether the transaction is fraudulent based on the type of the product, an examination of whether the transaction is fraudulent based on a merchant involved in the transaction, an examination of whether the transaction is fraudulent based on the type of transaction (e.g., online or in-person), and/or the like.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtaining, after receiving the payment authorization, a sender status based on the sender information; and when the sender status is preauthorized, instructing, through the network and after obtaining the sender status, the recipient financial institution to bypass a transaction fraud detection mechanism as in the improvement discussed in Mossoba in the system executing the method of Kimberg. As in Mossoba, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a sender status based on the sender information, and when the sender status is preauthorized, instruct the recipient financial institution to bypass a transaction fraud detection mechanism to Kimberg’s method of transmitting disbursement from a payor to a payee.
Kimberg in view of Mossoba do not explicitly disclose, but Kumar teaches: determining a sender record of one or more sender records of preapproved senders is associated with the sender, such that the send status is preauthorized, comprising: determining first respective similarity measurements between non-numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records; and determining second respective similarity measurements between numerical attributes of the sender information and the one or more sender records (col.17 ln10-ln18, When additional information provided by the new client user 112 satisfies verification criteria (e.g., validates that the user is who he/she says he/she is) and/or good account status criteria (e.g., unresolved transactions have been resolved), at OPERATION 522, the method 500 uses the auditor 210 to accept the new client data record 202. For example, by accepting the new client data record 202, a work order for providing goods and/or services to the new client user 112 can be scheduled; col.7 ln12-ln32, Fuzzy logic methods can include one or a combination of matching methods, such as a common key method (e.g., using a phonetic algorithm to index names/words by sound that can be matched against other names/words that sound similar but may have differences in spelling), a list method (e.g., using an algorithm to generate spelling or numeric variations of certain attributes that can be matched against known attribute variants (e.g., Amy: Aimee, Amie, Ami)), an edit distance method (e.g., using the Levenshtein distance algorithm, the Damerau-Levenshtein distance algorithm, the Jaro-Winkler distance algorithm, or the Jaccard similarity coefficient) that measures the character-to-character distance (match score) between two attributes by determining a number of similar characters and/or a number of edit operations (e.g., insert, delete, or transpose) to transform one string into the other, and a statistical similarity method (e.g., using a statistical model that can be trained on a large volume of matching attribute pairs to recognize what two ‘similar attributes’ look like for analyzing two attributes (from a new client data record 202 and a prior client user profile 214) and assigning a similarity or match score)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kimberg/ Mossoba with the teaching of Kumar as they relate to systems/methods of conducting payment transaction between parties. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the present invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Kimberg/ Mossoba, for example coordinating payment transaction between payor and payee in Kimberg, to include a method of determining numerical and non-numerical attributes taught in Kumar for the predicated result of an improved fraud detection system.
With respect to claim 4 and 14
The combination of Kimberg, Mossoba, and Kumar teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 11 respectively. Kumar further teaches: determining the sender record of the one or more sender records of the preapproved senders is associated with the sender further comprises:
when an overall similarity measurement between the sender information and a candidate sender record of the one or more sender records is not less than a predetermined threshold score:
using the candidate sender record as the sender record; and determining that the sender record associated with the sender information is found; and the computing instructions, when run on the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform:
determining no sender record of the one or more sender records of the preapproved senders is associated with the sender, further comprising:
when the overall similarity measurement between the sender information and each of the one or more sender records is less than the predetermined threshold score, determining that the sender record associated with the sender information is not found (see col.7 ln49 – col.8 ln3, In some implementations, in determining whether identity information associated with a new client user 112 corresponds to identity information associated with a prior client user, the identity information analyzer 206 first compares a qualifying criterion or a set of qualifying criteria 204 a (i.e., one or more particular attributes used by the identity masking fraud detection system 106 to make matching decisions) of the new client data record 202 against prior client user profiles 214 (existing user profiles and previous user profiles) to determine one or more qualifying user profiles. For example, the identity information analyzer 206 may be operative or configured to query the database 104 for prior client user profiles 214 that match (e.g., exact and/or fuzzy match) the qualifying criterion/criteria 204 a (based on whether match scores for the attribute(s) corresponding to the qualifying criterion/criteria meet a particular threshold), wherein prior client user profiles 214 that match the qualifying criterion/criteria based on a threshold are identified as qualifying user profiles. In various implementations, the qualifying criterion 204 a or set of criteria and/or the threshold are configurable (e.g., manually and/or based on machine learning).)
With respect to claim 5 and 15
The combination of Kimberg, Mossoba, and Kumar teaches the limitation of claim 4 and 14 respectively. Kimberg further teaches: wherein instructing the recipient financial institution to bypass the transaction fraud detection mechanism associated with the sender further comprises:
transmitting, via the electronic network, the overall similarity measurement between the sender information and each of the one or more sender records (payment authorization message) to the recipient financial institution ([0027], The disbursement computing device utilizes the payee identifier to identify the payee financial account maintained at the payee bank (e.g., using a lookup table that maps the payee identifier to a PAN of the payee's financial account), such that the disbursement computing device accurately routes the payment authorization to the payee bank. The payment authorization message may be transmitted over the payment processing network, for example, formatted as a network message. In other embodiments, the disbursement computing device appends the additional data field to the payment authorization message, the additional data field corresponding to (and including) the payee identifier. Additionally, the payment authorization message includes the data field corresponding to (and including) the disbursement authorization identifier. The disbursement computing device may add an indicator to the table in another column (in the same row associated with the particular disbursement payment instruction) that the payment authorization message has been transmitted to the payee bank.)
Kumar also teaches: an overall similarity measurement between the sender information and the associated sender record (see col.6 ln60 – col.7 ln11)
With respect to claim 6 and 16
The combination of Kimberg, Mossoba, and Kumar teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 11 respectively. Mossoba further teaches: instructing the recipient financial institution to bypass the transaction fraud detection mechanism associated with the sender does not affect whether the recipient financial institution performs a different transaction fraud detection mechanism not associated with the sender before instructing the recipient financial institution to post the payment amount to the recipient account at the recipient financial institution (col.9 ln17-ln30, In some implementations, the annotation may serve as an authorization flag to indicate that a transaction involving the product may be preapproved. In such cases, the transaction may be preapproved in that the authorization platform may bypass one or more examinations of a fraud analysis of the transaction. For example, the authorization platform may bypass an examination of whether the transaction is fraudulent based on the location of the purchase, an examination of whether the transaction is fraudulent based on the type of the product, an examination of whether the transaction is fraudulent based on a merchant involved in the transaction, an examination of whether the transaction is fraudulent based on the type of transaction (e.g., online or in-person), and/or the like; see also col.10 ln5 – ln9, ln the fraud analysis platform may indicate that a user is likely to purchase a product and/or that one or more examinations of a fraud analysis can be bypassed based on an analysis of the online activity and/or a user's purchase tendency - bypassed based on online activity and/or a user's purchase tendency therefore it is based on individual basis.)
With respect to claim 10 and 20
The combination of Kimberg, Mossoba, and Kumar teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 11 respectively. Kimberg further teaches: wherein the computing instructions, when run on the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform: transmitting, via the electronic network and to the recipient financial institution, (a) a recipient account identifier for the recipient account and (b) recipient information of a recipient who owns the recipient account ([0073], In some embodiments, after receiving payment authorization message 674 from payor bank 604, disbursement computing device 203 transmits payment authorization message 674 (or a copy thereof) to payee bank 616. Payment authorization message 674 may be transmitted through network 601, for example, formatted as a network message. Payment authorization message 674 includes payee identifier 664 and disbursement amount 662. In some embodiments, payment authorization message 674 already includes the payee identifier data field (and, accordingly, payee identifier 664) prior to transmission of payment authorization message 674 to disbursement computing device 203. For example, payor bank 604 may append the data field including payee identifier 664 to payment authorization message 674. In other embodiments, disbursement computing device 203 appends the additional data field to payment authorization message 674, the additional data field corresponding to (and including) payee identifier 664.); and
receiving, via the electronic network and from the recipient financial institution, a recipient verification result based on the recipient account identifier and the recipient information (see [0073-0075].)
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Kimberg et al. (US20160247134A1) in view of Mossoba et al. (US10521837B1) in view of Kumar (US11055727B1), and further in view of Castagna et al. (US20180101848A1).
With respect to claim 2 and 12
The combination of Kimberg, Mossoba, and Kumar teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 11 respectively. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Castagna teaches: wherein obtaining the sender status of the sender further comprises: determining no sender record of the one or more sender records of the preapproved senders is associated with the sender, such that the sender status is not preauthorized ([0113], Upon detecting that the channel node 140 is an authorized sender, the payments node 150 may then continue to execute its functions to further process the transaction. On the other hand, other transactional records 120 may appear as a result of senders which are not on the payments whitelist 1050. In such a case, the payments node 150 will decline to execute its functions to process transactions in which the sender is not authorized.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kimberg/ Mossoba/Kumar with the teaching of Castagna as they relate to systems/methods of conducting payment transaction between parties. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the present invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Kimberg/ Mossoba/ Kumar, for example coordinating payment transaction between payor and payee in Kimberg, to include a method of determining when sender is not preauthorized then there will not be a sender record as taught in Castagna for the predicated result of an improved fraud detection system.
With respect to claim 3 and 13
The combination of Kimberg, Mossoba, and Kumar teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 11 respectively. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Castagna teaches:
the sender information of the sender further comprises a sender public key of the sender [0011], the transactional record comprises a public key, the public key comprising an ID of a sender);
determining the sender record of the one or more sender records of the preapproved senders is associated with the sender further comprises:
when a candidate sender record of the one or more sender records is associated with the sender public key: using the candidate sender record as the sender record; and
determining that the sender record associated with the sender information is found; and
determining no sender record of the one or more sender records of the preapproved senders is associated with the sender, further comprising:
when none of the one or more sender records is associated with the sender public key, determining that the sender record associated with the sender information is not found ([0011, the transactional record comprises a public key, the public key comprising an ID of a sender, wherein the plurality of nodes each comprise a database, the database comprising a list of authorized senders, and wherein each of the plurality of nodes are further configured to compare the ID of the sender to the list of authorized senders; detect that the ID of the sender is not found in the list of authorized senders; and decline to process the transaction.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kimberg/ Mossoba/Kumar with the teaching of Castagna as they relate to systems/methods of conducting payment transaction between parties. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the present invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Kimberg/ Mossoba/ Kumar, for example coordinating payment transaction between payor and payee in Kimberg, to include a method of determining that the sender information matches the associated sender record based on sender’s public key as taught in Castagna for the predicated result of an improved fraud detection system.
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Kimberg et al. (US20160247134A1) in view of Mossoba et al. (US10521837B1) in view of Kumar (US11055727B1), and further in view of Weinflash et al. (US20120239557A1).
With respect to claim 7 and 17
The combination of Kimberg, Mossoba, and Kumar teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 11 respectively. Kimberg further teaches: the payment authorization further comprises recipient information for a recipient who owns the recipient account ([0025], The payment authorization message may include the disbursement amount, the payor identifier, and/or the payee identifier; [0021], A payee identifier may include any identifier associated with a payee financial account (e.g., an alphanumeric identifier similar to the payor identifier, but that is assigned to a PAN of the payee financial account).);
The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Weinflash teaches: the computing instructions, when run on the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to perform: determining a recipient verification score based on the recipient information and a user record associated with the recipient account ([0019], The fraud monitoring system uses the recipient account number/identifier to either access the central database system 110 in order to retrieve characteristic data associated with the account (and then calculate a risk score on a real time basis); and when the recipient verification score is below a predetermined threshold score, reporting an error message to the sender financial institution ([0035], Finally, at step 228, if a transaction is flagged as fraudulent (or suspicious) at step 224, then a flag or marker may be set in database 120 (as a new account characteristic) for use in analyzing future transfer transactions to the same account (e.g., a recipient account involved in an attempted fraudulent transaction may be more likely to be involved in future fraudulent transactions). Also, the financial institution in question may place a freeze on an originating account that has had an attempted fraudulent transaction, until the possible fraudulent takeover had been corrected or other remedial steps have been taken. The originating financial institution may use this information, either alone or in combination with other risk factors, to determine whether or not to transfer the funds to the recipient account (suspect account))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kimberg/ Mossoba/Kumar with the teaching of Weinflash as they relate to systems/methods of conducting payment transaction between parties. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the present invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Kimberg/ Mossoba/ Kumar, for example coordinating payment transaction between payor and payee in Kimberg, to include a method of determining recipient verification score in order to further detect unauthorized transfers between accounts as taught in Weinflash for the predicated result of an improved fraud detection system.
With respect to claim 8
The combination of Kimberg, Mossoba, Kumar, and Weinflash teaches the limitation of claim 7. The combination Weinflash further teaches: wherein: the user record is at least one of:
maintained by the system; or obtained by the system after receiving, through the electronic network, the payment authorization from the recipient financial institution and on behalf of the sender (see [0019], The transaction data (including the recipient account number/identifier) is provided to the fraud monitoring system 150. The fraud monitoring system uses the recipient account number/identifier to either access the central database system 110 in order to retrieve characteristic data associated with the account (and then calculate a risk score on a real time basis), or in some embodiments, to access the central database system 100 in order to retrieve a risk score if it has been previously calculated and stored in database device 120.)
With respect to claim 18
The combination of Kimberg, Mossoba, Kumar, and Weinflash teaches the limitation of claim 17. Weinflash further teaches: obtaining the user record by at least one of:
retrieving the user record from a database based on the recipient account identifier; or
requesting, via the electronic network, the user record from the recipient financial institution based on the recipient account identifier (see [0019], The transaction data (including the recipient account number/identifier) is provided to the fraud monitoring system 150. The fraud monitoring system uses the recipient account number/identifier to either access the central database system 110 in order to retrieve characteristic data associated with the account (and then calculate a risk score on a real time basis), or in some embodiments, to access the central database system 100 in order to retrieve a risk score if it has been previously calculated and stored in database device 120.)
With respect to claim 9 and 19
The combination of Kimberg, Mossoba, Kumar, and Weinflash teaches the limitation of claim 7 and 17 respectively. Kumar further teaches: determining the recipient verification score comprises determining a similarity measurement between the recipient information and the user record (see col.6 ln60 – col.7 ln11, the identity information analyzer 206 matches particular attributes of a new client data record 202 against attributes of a prior client user profile 214 using fuzzy logic with varying level of accuracy settings. Fuzzy logic matching methods are used to identify matches between datasets that may be less than 100% perfect, such as when finding correspondences between personal identifying information attributes of a new data record 202 and personal identifying information attributes of prior client user profiles 214 in the database 104. For example, in matching some personal identifying information attributes, the identity information analyzer 206 is configured to match attributes with variations of the attributes, wherein the variations may be intentional or unintentional and can include variations such as typographical error variations, phonetic spelling variations, name variations, initials, nickname variations, missing word component variations, missing spaces variations, truncated name component variations, and language variations.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE Non-FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm EST.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 1/20/2026