DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 7/23/2024.
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 1-18 are pending and are considered in this office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a transaction processing module”; “a debit card issuance module”; “a debit card issuance module”; and “an interchange fee processing module” configured to…. in claim 1; and “a check transaction processing module”; “a debit card issuance module”; “an interchange fee processing module”; and “a fraud risk management module” for….in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structures are described in para [0034-0038], that the software (or modules) can be implemented on various computers.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" in limitation “wherein the machine learning algorithm considers factors such as the user's transaction history, check amount, and frequency of check deposits” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-18 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 and 17 are drawn to system claims; claim 2-16 and 18 are drawn to method claims, which are all within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process).
Independent claim 1 recites: (claims 17 being similar in scope):
Claim 1:
an electronic database configured to store account information associated with a plurality of users;
a transaction processing module configured to receive check transaction data, verify the authenticity of the check, and approve the transaction for immediate credit to a user's account;
a debit card issuance module configured to issue a specialized debit card linked to the user's account, wherein the debit card is usable for transactions at merchants; and
an interchange fee processing module configured to charge an interchange fee to merchants for transactions conducted with the specialized debit card and allocate a portion of the interchange fee to offset the risks associated with the immediate credit of check transactions and to support operational costs.
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) commercial transaction; 2) fundamental economic principles; under the Certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea, recited above, includes: a transaction processing module configured to receive check transaction data, verify the authenticity of the check, and approve the transaction for immediate credit to a user's account; an interchange fee processing module configured to charge an interchange fee to merchants for transactions conducted with the specialized debit card and allocate a portion of the interchange fee to offset the risks associated with the immediate credit of check transactions and to support operational costs. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations 1) commercial transaction; 2) fundamental economic principles, but for the recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – 1) commercial transaction; 2) fundamental economic principles; 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: “a transaction processing module”; “a debit card issuance module”; “a debit card issuance module”; and “an interchange fee processing module”) 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 elements: “an electronic database configured to store account information associated with a plurality of users; a debit card issuance module configured to issue a specialized debit card linked to the user's account, wherein the debit card is usable for transactions at merchants” 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 operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e. modules. 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 2-16 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 is a method claim of using the same system of claim 1; claim 3 further describes capturing an image of the check; claim 4 describes using OCR to extract check details; claim 5 describes cross-refrencing the check details with a database; claim 6 on further narrows the cross-referencing by checking for inconsistencies; claim 7 describes a machine learning algorithm to assess the risk at a very high level;etc, which all of the limitation are narrowing the steps performed in claim 1.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The other dependent claims, claim 18, is similar in scope to the claim 2 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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, 2, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clower et al. (US20240185252A1) in view of Nosek et al. (US8050997B1).
With respect to claim 1
Clower discloses:
an electronic database configured to store account information associated with a plurality of users ([0031], The system enables banks to decrease the risk of accepting and advancing payment of an item being returned unpaid by providing a comprehensive risk assessment capability based on bank collected and compiled data associated with bank items, returned items and depositor information stored in bank or third party, non-public, data stores. With the Instant Funding System, banks are able to offer available funds instantly from items sourced to various entities and presented by a particular customer from with a decreased risk of loss due to unpaid items by tracking and analyzing daily check transactions processed by a particular bank on the previous business day; all returned checks both presented to the bank for deposit (sourced to other institutions) and sourced to the bank. Analysis of the depositor's information file is also performed. This information is stored in various databases associated or operated by the banks or third parties and used to facilitate deposit transactions processed in a teller line, through a mobile device via a dedicated application, or an automated teller machine (ATM) to determine the level of risk tolerance for a particular item.);
a transaction processing module configured to receive check transaction data, verify the authenticity of the check, and approve the transaction for immediate credit to a user's account ([0073], When a bank customer presents an item for check cashing or deposit, an Authorization Attempt is made and the process of the IFES Authorization Engine determine if accelerated funding should be made available by the bank is invoked. When an Authorization Attempt is made, data is submitted as part of the transaction message. The data submitted includes the check details (check number, payer bank, amount) and the customer requesting the transaction is matched against payer and profile statistical attribute tables to ascertain an IFES Grade within Preprocessing Database 250. Once the transaction is received via an authorization attempt, IFES determines if the transaction falls within IFES grade acceptable range. To make this determination, the IFES Authorization Engine runs a query against an IFES base rule set where additional and more detailed risk model variables are configured and maintained. In one embodiment an additional layer of querying occurs where additional information concerning the payer and payee is obtained from the database. This additional layer of analysis facilitates potentially higher transaction approval rates and decreased losses. All transaction information and attributes returned are interrogated within the Authorization Engine against a series of configurable rules to issue a response. A positive response from the Authorization Engine will indicate to the financial institution to provide “Accelerated Funds Availability” to the customer.);
a debit card issuance module configured to issue a specialized debit card linked to the user's account, wherein the debit card is usable for transactions at merchants ([0063], In one embodiment, ATM 110 may be, among other things, a check cashing unit that is configured to enable a customer of bank 105 to cash a check or a unit for a customer to make withdrawals from an account, transfer funds, or make deposits. In operation, a bank customer is provided with a card or other token that uniquely identifies a bank customer to one of more accounts with the bank.);
……and allocate a portion of the interchange fee to offset the risks associated with the immediate credit of check transactions and to support operational costs ([0004], these lenders and check cashers charge significant fees to the consumer. This fee is necessitated to offset the risk borne by the enterprise that the deposited check will in fact be returned due to NSF, leaving the lender or check casher with little recourse against the customer who likely has spent the funds at issue or against the payor of the check; see also [0168], This notification is significant because a bank may charge a fee for the accelerated availability of funds and the user may not wish to pay a fee or have a need for accelerated fund availability. Other terms associated with the transaction may apply. Moreover, state and/or federal regulations require that fees associated with such banking services be provided to the customer in advance of charging the fee. Thus, once the customer is notified that the transaction was approved for accelerated funding and any fees associated with the transaction, the process continues at step 1323 where the customer either accepts or declines accelerated funding.)
Clower doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Nosek teaches:
an interchange fee processing module configured to charge an interchange fee to merchants for transactions conducted with the specialized debit card (see col.2 ln45-ln47, For an ATM card, a merchant may have to pay a fixed fee similar in magnitude to that assessed in a credit card transaction; see also col.6 ln34-ln40, Before initiating an ACH transaction on behalf of user 132, facilitator 112 may require verification of the user's account with financial institution 130 and/or the availability of some form of credit. The credit source may be a credit card or a credit line granted by facilitator 112, institution 130 or some other entity, or may be a debit card, ATM card or some other type of credit now known or hereafter developed.)
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 Clower with the teaching of Nosek as they relate to a system of facilitating instant availability of funds. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the system of Clower of instant funding and payment at a point of deposit to include a method of paying a fixed fee by a merchant for using a ATM card in Nosek for predictable results of facilitating check-based transaction for merchant.
With respect to claim 2
The combination of Clower and Nosek teaches the limitation of claim 1. Clower further teaches: receiving, by a transaction processing module, check transaction data from a user; verifying, by the transaction processing module, the authenticity of the check; approving, by the transaction processing module, the check transaction for immediate credit to the user’s account ([0073], When a bank customer presents an item for check cashing or deposit, an Authorization Attempt is made and the process of the IFES Authorization Engine determine if accelerated funding should be made available by the bank is invoked. When an Authorization Attempt is made, data is submitted as part of the transaction message. The data submitted includes the check details (check number, payer bank, amount) and the customer requesting the transaction is matched against payer and profile statistical attribute tables to ascertain an IFES Grade within Preprocessing Database 250. Once the transaction is received via an authorization attempt, IFES determines if the transaction falls within IFES grade acceptable range. To make this determination, the IFES Authorization Engine runs a query against an IFES base rule set where additional and more detailed risk model variables are configured and maintained. In one embodiment an additional layer of querying occurs where additional information concerning the payer and payee is obtained from the database. This additional layer of analysis facilitates potentially higher transaction approval rates and decreased losses. All transaction information and attributes returned are interrogated within the Authorization Engine against a series of configurable rules to issue a response. A positive response from the Authorization Engine will indicate to the financial institution to provide “Accelerated Funds Availability” to the customer.);
….and allocating, by the interchange fee processing module, a portion of the interchange fee to offset the risks associated with the immediate credit of the check transaction and to support operational costs ([0168], This notification is significant because a bank may charge a fee for the accelerated availability of funds and the user may not wish to pay a fee or have a need for accelerated fund availability. Other terms associated with the transaction may apply. Moreover, state and/or federal regulations require that fees associated with such banking services be provided to the customer in advance of charging the fee.)
Nosek further teaches:
…user’s account linked to a specialized debit card (col.12 ln21-ln23, Illustratively, a debit card may be associated with the same bank account or financial account on which a user requests an ACH entry.);
charging, by an interchange fee processing module, an interchange fee to merchants for transactions conducted with the specialized debit card (see col.2 ln45-ln47, For an ATM card, a merchant may have to pay a fixed fee similar in magnitude to that assessed in a credit card transaction; see also col.6 ln34-ln40, Before initiating an ACH transaction on behalf of user 132, facilitator 112 may require verification of the user's account with financial institution 130 and/or the availability of some form of credit. The credit source may be a credit card or a credit line granted by facilitator 112, institution 130 or some other entity, or may be a debit card, ATM card or some other type of credit now known or hereafter developed.)
With respect to claim 12
The combination of Clower and Nosek teaches the limitation of claim 2. Clower further teaches: further comprising the step of notifying the user of the transaction approval and the available balance on the specialized debit card ([0039], An ATM terminal has a user interface that may include a graphical user interface, through which the user may interact with the bank at least at some distance away from the bank to execute transactions. If accelerated funding is granted, the depositor's account is credited immediately with the relevant amount of funds and the customer, in turn, is permitted to immediately draw from the funds deposited.)
With respect to claim 13
The combination of Clower and Nosek teaches the limitation of claim 2. Clower further teaches: further comprising the step of providing the user with a detailed transaction summary, including the interchange fee charged and the portion allocated for risk offset and operational costs ([0037-0038], The mobile deposit application embodying this aspect of an embodiment of the present accelerated funding system receives confirmation through the user's mobile device that in the event that funding is approved by the bank, the customer accepts the terms of accelerated funding and fees are allocated to the customer appropriately…The mobile platforms made available to bank customers through software provided by the bank facilitate transmission and receipt of data to the accelerated funding system of the present invention.)
With respect to claim 14
The combination of Clower and Nosek teaches the limitation of claim 2. Clower further teaches: wherein the transaction processing module and the interchange fee processing module are integrated into a single platform accessible via a mobile application ([0039], Similar aspects of the present accelerated funding system are implemented though the ATM banking capability made available to customers. The risk allocation aspects of the presently described accelerated funding system are integrated into the bank account processing system to provide accelerated funding decisions for checks presented at an ATM for deposit.)
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clower et al. (US20240185252A1) in view of Nosek et al. (US8050997B1), and further in view of Roach et al. (US20230060395A1).
With respect to claim 3
The combination of Clower and Nosek teaches the limitation of claim 2. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Roach teaches: wherein the step of receiving check transaction data includes capturing an image of the check using a mobile device camera (see [0025 and 0203])
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 Clower/ Nosek with the teaching of Roach as they relate to a system of processing payment transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Clower/ Nosek, for example instant funding and payment at a point of deposit in Clower, to include a method of capturing an image of a check using a mobile device camera as taught in Roach for predictable results of facilitating check-based transaction for merchant.
With respect to claim 4
The combination of Clower, Nosek, and Roach teaches the limitation of claim 3. Roach further teaches: wherein the image of the check is processed using optical character recognition (OCR) to extract check details (see [0179])
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clower et al. (US20240185252A1) in view of Nosek et al. (US8050997B1), and further in view of Ferris et al. (US8165381B1).
With respect to claim 5
The combination of Clower and Nosek teaches the limitation of claim 2. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Ferris teaches: wherein the step of verifying the authenticity of the check includes cross-referencing the check details with a database of known fraudulent checks (col.6 ln51-ln58, At step 220, one or more databases and/or other sources of data may be accessed to verify and/or confirm additional information. For example, MICR information may be verified, potential fraudulent activity may be determined, alternations to the payment item may be identified and/or other determinations may be made. For example, fraudulent activity may be determined by assessing whether account information is valid.)
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 Clower/ Nosek with the teaching of Roach as they relate to a system of processing payment transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Clower/ Nosek, for example instant funding and payment at a point of deposit in Clower, to include a method of verifying the authenticity of the check with a database as taught in Ferris for predictable results of facilitating check-based transaction for merchant.
With respect to claim 6
The combination of Clower, Nosek, and Ferris teaches the limitation of claim 5. Ferris further teaches: wherein the cross-referencing includes checking for inconsistencies in the check's date, amount, and payee information (col.2 ln14-ln23, In accordance with other aspects of the exemplary embodiment of the present invention, the image data is converted to electronic image data by optical character recognition where the electronic data and the electronic image data are compared; the step of comparing further comprises the step of comparing one or more of payee name, date, amount and signature associated with the payment item; the step of comparing further comprises the step of accessing one or more databases to identify potentially fraudulent activity.)
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clower et al. (US20240185252A1) in view of Nosek et al. (US8050997B1), and further in view of Kreckel et al. (US20260037979A1).
With respect to claim 7
The combination of Clower and Nosek teaches the limitation of claim 2. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Kreckel teaches: wherein the step of approving the check transaction includes applying a machine learning algorithm to assess the risk of the transaction based on historical data ([0074], In some embodiments, a method includes generating, by a machine learning model executed by the at least one processor, an indicator that is expressed as a severity associated with unauthorized activity for a processed action of a user, the machine learning model being trained to predict a likelihood of unauthorized activity for the processed action. This indicator is the same as the two-digit risk indicator discussed above. As used herein, the term “machine learning model” may refer to an algorithm that uses transactional data, customer characteristics and historical data to predict the likelihood of fraudulent activity. Alternative types of machine learning models may include neural network, bayesian networks, gaussian processes, genetic algorithms, and decision trees.)
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 Clower/ Nosek with the teaching of Kreckel as they relate to a system of processing payment transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Clower/ Nosek , for example instant funding and payment at a point of deposit in Clower, to include a method of applying a machine learning algorithm to assess the risk of the transaction as taught in Kreckel for predictable results of facilitating check-based transaction for merchant.
With respect to claim 8
The combination of Clower, Nosek, and Kreckel teaches the limitation of claim 7. Kreckel further teaches: wherein the machine learning algorithm considers factors such as the user's transaction history, check amount, and frequency of check deposits (see [0047])
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clower et al. (US20240185252A1) in view of Nosek et al. (US8050997B1), and further in view of Edwards et al. (US20230360022A1).
With respect to claim 9
The combination of Clower and Nosek teaches the limitation of claim 2. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Edwards teaches: wherein the specialized debit card is a virtual card linked to the user's account ([0068], At step S725, the server converts the forgotten payment card in the database from a payment card associated with the account to a virtual payment card associated with the account; see also [0060], Another embodiment of the present invention is shown in FIG. 6 . The system 600 shown in FIG. 6 includes an automated teller machine (ATM) 605 and a payment card 630 which may be a debit card or a credit card issued by an account servicing institution such as a financial institution or a bank.)
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 Clower/ Nosek with the teaching of Edwards as they relate to a system of processing payment transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Clower/ Nosek , for example instant funding and payment at a point of deposit in Clower, to include a method of linking a payment debit card to a virtual card as taught in Edwards for predictable results of facilitating check-based transaction for merchant.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clower et al. (US20240185252A1) in view of Nosek et al. (US8050997B1), and further in view of Matuso et al. (US20110243394A1).
With respect to claim 10
The combination of Clower and Nosek teaches the limitation of claim 2. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Matuso teaches: wherein the interchange fee is dynamically adjusted based on the risk profile of the user and the check transaction ([0242], Then, the fee setting unit 19 f sets the fee at “$0” when the risk level is determined as “level 0”, sets the fee at “$1” when the risk level is determined as “level 1”, and sets the fee at “$5” when the risk level is determined as “level 2”. In this manner, the fee setting unit 19 f sets a lower fee for the check-cashing process as the degree of match between the current signature image and the latest reference signature image is increased; [0060], the check processing apparatus of the present invention determines a risk level related to the handling of the check by using the check information and the information acquired from the DB, and processes the check based on a processing content corresponding to the determined risk level (see C-2 of FIG. 1C).)
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 Clower/ Nosek with the teaching of Matuso as they relate to a system of processing payment transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Clower/ Nosek, for example instant funding and payment at a point of deposit in Clower, to include a method of adjusting a fee based on the risk profile and the check transaction as taught in Matuso for predictable results of facilitating check-based transaction for merchant.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clower et al. (US20240185252A1) in view of Nosek et al. (US8050997B1), and further in view of Browning et al. (US20180150842A1).
With respect to claim 11
The combination of Clower and Nosek teaches the limitation of claim 2. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Browning teaches: wherein a portion of the interchange fee is allocated to an insurance fund to cover potential losses from fraudulent checks ([0022], Upon purchasing checks or at the time of subscription, a subscriber can, for an additional fee, subscribe to a check fraud protection program. The subscription will enable the subscriber to obtain reimbursement from the Check Fraud Protection service provider for the consumer's losses due to predetermined causes of check fraud.)
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 Clower/ Nosek with the teaching of Browning as they relate to a system of processing payment transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Clower/ Nosek, for example instant funding and payment at a point of deposit in Clower, to include a method of imposing a fee on processing fraudulent checks as an insurance as taught in Browning for predictable results of facilitating check-based transaction for merchant.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clower et al. (US20240185252A1) in view of Nosek et al. (US8050997B1), and further in view of Srinivasa et al. (US20220300970A1).
With respect to claim 15
The combination of Clower and Nosek teaches the limitation of claim 2. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Srinivasa teaches: further comprising the step of implementing multi-factor authentication for the user during the check transaction process to enhance security ([0011], the process of implementing the multi-factor authentication may be executed by a backend server that is configured to oversee operations of one or more ATM terminals. In this embodiment, the disclosed system may include a server and an ATM terminal; [0031], ATM terminal 120 is generally any automated dispensing device configured to dispense items when users interact with the ATM terminal 120. For example, the ATM terminal 120 may comprise a terminal device for dispensing cash, tickets, scrip, travelers' checks, airline tickets, gaming materials, other items of value, etc. In one embodiment, ATM terminal 120 is an automated teller machine that allows users 102 to withdraw cash, check balances, make deposits interactively using, for example, a magnetically encoded card, a check, etc., among other services that the ATM terminal provides.)
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 Clower/ Nosek with the teaching of Srinivasa as they relate to a system of processing payment transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Clower/ Nosek, for example instant funding and payment at a point of deposit in Clower, to include a system of multi-factor authentication for the check transaction as taught in Srinivasa for predictable results of facilitating check-based transaction for merchant.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clower et al. (US20240185252A1) in view of Nosek et al. (US8050997B1), and further in view of Atkins (US5875437A).
With respect to claim 16
The combination of Clower and Nosek teaches the limitation of claim 2. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Atkins teaches: wherein the method includes generating periodic reports for the user summarizing the check transactions, interchange fees, and risk management activities (The system of the present invention can provide the individual a periodic account activity report that clearly displays the details with regard to each transaction conducted within the account during a relevant time period. Such transactions include purchase and sale of goods and services or securities, withdrawal or deposit of cash, acquisition of annuities and insurance policies, and access to one or more types of credit facilities.)
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 Clower/ Nosek with the teaching of Srinivasa as they relate to a system of processing payment transactions. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Clower/ Nosek, for example instant funding and payment at a point of deposit in Atkins, to include a method of generating reports summarizing the check transactions as taught in Atkins for predictable results of facilitating check-based transaction for merchant.
With respect to claim 17
Clower teaches:
a check transaction processing module for receiving and processing check transactions for immediate credit to a user's account ([0073], When a bank customer presents an item for check cashing or deposit, an Authorization Attempt is made and the process of the IFES Authorization Engine determine if accelerated funding should be made available by the bank is invoked. When an Authorization Attempt is made, data is submitted as part of the transaction message. The data submitted includes the check details (check number, payer bank, amount) and the customer requesting the transaction is matched against payer and profile statistical attribute tables to ascertain an IFES Grade within Preprocessing Database 250. Once the transaction is received via an authorization attempt, IFES determines if the transaction falls within IFES grade acceptable range. To make this determination, the IFES Authorization Engine runs a query against an IFES base rule set where additional and more detailed risk model variables are configured and maintained. In one embodiment an additional layer of querying occurs where additional information concerning the payer and payee is obtained from the database. This additional layer of analysis facilitates potentially higher transaction approval rates and decreased losses. All transaction information and attributes returned are interrogated within the Authorization Engine against a series of configurable rules to issue a response. A positive response from the Authorization Engine will indicate to the financial institution to provide “Accelerated Funds Availability” to the customer.);
a debit card issuance module for issuing a specialized debit card linked to the user's account, wherein the specialized debit card facilitates transactions at merchants ([0063], In one embodiment, ATM 110 may be, among other things, a check cashing unit that is configured to enable a customer of bank 105 to cash a check or a unit for a customer to make withdrawals from an account, transfer funds, or make deposits. In operation, a bank customer is provided with a card or other token that uniquely identifies a bank customer to one of more accounts with the bank.);
a fraud risk management module for allocating a portion of the interchange fees to manage and offset fraud risks associated with immediate check cashing and to contribute to operational costs of the system ([0004], these lenders and check cashers charge significant fees to the consumer. This fee is necessitated to offset the risk borne by the enterprise that the deposited check will in fact be returned due to NSF, leaving the lender or check casher with little recourse against the customer who likely has spent the funds at issue or against the payor of the check; see also [0168], This notification is significant because a bank may charge a fee for the accelerated availability of funds and the user may not wish to pay a fee or have a need for accelerated fund availability. Other terms associated with the transaction may apply. Moreover, state and/or federal regulations require that fees associated with such banking services be provided to the customer in advance of charging the fee. Thus, once the customer is notified that the transaction was approved for accelerated funding and any fees associated with the transaction, the process continues at step 1323 where the customer either accepts or declines accelerated funding.)
Clower doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Nosek teaches:
an interchange fee processing module for charging and processing interchange fees for transactions conducted with the specialized debit card (see col.2 ln45-ln47, For an ATM card, a merchant may have to pay a fixed fee similar in magnitude to that assessed in a credit card transaction; see also col.6 ln34-ln40, Before initiating an ACH transaction on behalf of user 132, facilitator 112 may require verification of the user's account with financial institution 130 and/or the availability of some form of credit. The credit source may be a credit card or a credit line granted by facilitator 112, institution 130 or some other entity, or may be a debit card, ATM card or some other type of credit now known or hereafter developed.)
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 Clower with the teaching of Nosek as they relate to a system of facilitating instant availability of funds. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the system of Clower of instant funding and payment at a point of deposit to include a method of paying a fixed fee by a merchant for using a ATM card in Nosek for predictable results of facilitating check-based transaction for merchant.
With respect to claim 18
The combination of Clower and Nosek teaches the limitation of claim 17. Clower further teaches:
issuing a specialized debit card to users, wherein the debit card is linked to the users' accounts and enables transactions at merchants ([0063], In one embodiment, ATM 110 may be, among other things, a check cashing unit that is configured to enable a customer of bank 105 to cash a check or a unit for a customer to make withdrawals from an account, transfer funds, or make deposits. In operation, a bank customer is provided with a card or other token that uniquely identifies a bank customer to one of more accounts with the bank.);
allocating a portion of the interchange fee to cover the risks associated with instant check cashing and the operational costs of the system ([0004], these lenders and check cashers charge significant fees to the consumer. This fee is necessitated to offset the risk borne by the enterprise that the deposited check will in fact be returned due to NSF, leaving the lender or check casher with little recourse against the customer who likely has spent the funds at issue or against the payor of the check; see also [0168], This notification is significant because a bank may charge a fee for the accelerated availability of funds and the user may not wish to pay a fee or have a need for accelerated fund availability. Other terms associated with the transaction may apply. Moreover, state and/or federal regulations require that fees associated with such banking services be provided to the customer in advance of charging the fee. Thus, once the customer is notified that the transaction was approved for accelerated funding and any fees associated with the transaction, the process continues at step 1323 where the customer either accepts or declines accelerated funding.), thereby enabling the provision of instant check cashing services at no direct cost to the user.
The portion of the limitation which recites “thereby enabling the provision of instant check cashing services at no direct cost to the user” is merely a recited intended use. This portion is given little to no patentable weight because the limitation, or portion thereof, does not claim the function(s) as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or it does not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being “for … [performing a specific functionality]”, etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
Nosek further teaches:
charging an interchange fee to merchants for transactions made with the specialized debit card (see col.2 ln45-ln47, For an ATM card, a merchant may have to pay a fixed fee similar in magnitude to that assessed in a credit card transaction; see also col.6 ln34-ln40, Before initiating an ACH transaction on behalf of user 132, facilitator 112 may require verification of the user's account with financial institution 130 and/or the availability of some form of credit. The credit source may be a credit card or a credit line granted by facilitator 112, institution 130 or some other entity, or may be a debit card, ATM card or some other type of credit now known or hereafter developed.)
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 Clower with the teaching of Nosek as they relate to a system of facilitating instant availability of funds. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the system of Clower of instant funding and payment at a point of deposit to include a method of paying a fixed fee by a merchant for using a ATM card in Nosek for predictable results of facilitating check-based transaction for merchant.
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
4/20/2026
Prosecution Insights