DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 18/365,155 filed on August 23, 2023 and application no. 17/503,125 October 15, 2021. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application(s). Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 23, 2024 and November 27, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on July 23, 2024 are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim 6 term “the indicator” lacks of antecedent basis. (Claim 6 depends on claim 1, which does not introduce the term “an indicator”. However, claim, 5 does introduce the term.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “…transmitting, by the buyer device, a second transaction request for the transaction to the issuer server device…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the buyer device” and “the issuer device”. This antecedent basis also makes it unclear whether the “buyer device” is the same as the previously recited “first device” or if the “issuer server device” is intended to refer to the “second device” or if these terms introduce a new, distinct components.
Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, they are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected under 112(b) at least for their dependence to claims 1, 8 and 15.
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 recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03.
Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (Claims 1-13). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
receiving, by an application of a first device, a first transaction request from a second device, the first transaction request comprising an account number entered at a user interface of the first device;
querying, by the application of the first device, a register to determine if the account number in the first transaction request is associated with an identifier associated with the first device;
determining whether the association between the account number and the identifier exists;
in accordance with a determination that the association exists, requesting, by the first device, a sending of a message to the first device that requests authorization of a transaction corresponding to the first transaction request;
determining whether the transaction is authorized based at least in part on a response to the message;
in accordance with a determination that the transaction is authorized, transmitting, by the buyer device, a second transaction request for the transaction to the issuer server device;
and
in accordance with a determination that the transaction is not authorized, canceling the transaction.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas of authorizing a transaction based on association of information. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interactions (e.g., transaction authorization).
Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Here claim 1 recite the additional elements of an application of a first device, a second device, a user interface and an issuer device. Independent claim 8 recites the additional elements of one-or more non-transitory computer-readable medium one or more processors, an application of a first device, a second device, a user interface and an issuer device. Independent claim 15 recites the additional elements of one or more memories, one or more processors, an application of a first device, a second device, a user interface and an issuer device. These additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) use of computer-readable medium, one or more memories, one or more processors, an application of a first device, a second device, a user interface and an issuer device in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing component (e.g., computer-readable medium, one or more memories, one or more processors, an application of a first device, a second device, a user interface and an issuer device) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claim 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 further refine the abstract idea by requesting and querying an identifier. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 further refine the abstract idea by describing the identifier (e.g., comprises a mobile phone number). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 further refine the abstract idea by describing the first and second device. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19 further refine the abstract idea by describing the transaction request (e.g., comprises an amount). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 further refine the abstract idea by describing the indicator the seller device (e.g., merchant identifier). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 and 14 further refine the abstract idea by indicating the account number in the first transaction request comprises a primary account number, These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Dragt” (US 2010/0223145 A1) in view of “Coughlin” (US 20090249459 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15: Dragt disclose:
Claim 1: A method, comprising:
Claim 8: One or more non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing computer executable instructions that, (See Dragt, [0144]) computer usable medium having a computer readable program code or program instructions) when executed by one or more processors of a first device, configure the one or more processor to perform operations comprising:
Claim 15: A first device (Dragt, Fig. 2. The mobile device 215; transaction processor 245), comprising: one or more memories configured to store computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors connected to the one or more memories and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to at least:
receiving, by an application of a first device, a first transaction request from a second device, the first transaction request comprising an account number entered at a user interface of the first device; (See at least Dragt, Fig. 3; [0007-0008]; [0025]; [0029]; [0032]; [0046] ; [0090-0092] [0101]; [0112] receiving, by an application of a first device (i.e.,
querying, by the application of the first device, a register to transaction processing application) a first transaction request (i.e., request to approve a proposed transaction) from a second device (i.e., point of sale device (POS)) the first transaction request comprising an account number (i.e., payment account) entered at a user interface of the first device (i.e., a payment account may be selected by the mobile device).) determine if the account number in the first transaction request is [stored]; (See at least Dragt, [0008]; [0092] querying (e.g., when is identified on prestored preferences) a register (e.g., one or more memories) register to determine if the account number in the first transaction request is [stored] (e.g., For example, the transaction processor 245 may identify an account to be utilized for the proposed transaction and a transaction amount associated with the proposed transaction.).
determining whether the association between the account number and the identifier exists; (See at least Dragt, [0008]; [0092])
in accordance with a determination that the association exists, requesting, by the first device, a sending of a message to the first device that requests authorization of a transaction corresponding to the first transaction request; (See at least Dragt, Fig. 4; [0111]; At block 420, which may be optional in various embodiments of the invention, a user indication to approve a proposed transaction may be received at the mobile device 110. For example, one or more suitable input devices associated with the mobile device 110, such as a keypad or touch screen display, may be utilized to receive a user indication to approve a proposed transaction... In this regard, the user may be prompted to approve the proposed transaction.)
determining whether the transaction is authorized based at least in part on a response to the message; (See at least Dragt, Fig. 4; Fig. 3 (320) At block 320, the transaction processor 115 may make a determination as to whether the proposed transaction will be approved or declined)
in accordance with a determination that the transaction is authorized, transmitting, by the buyer device, a second transaction request for the transaction to the issuer server device;
and (See at least Dragt, Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0027]; [0032] The transaction processor may determine whether to approve or deny the proposed transaction. the receipt of a transaction acceptance or decline decision from a transaction processor 115, and/or the receipt of settlement related information from a transaction processor 115 or other system (e.g., financial institution).)
in accordance with a determination that the transaction is not authorized, canceling the transaction. (See at least Dragt, Abs.; Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0027]; [0032] Decline transaction).
Dragt does not explicitly disclose determine if the account number in the first transaction request is associated with an identifier associated with the first device.
Coughlin, on the other hand, teaches:
querying, by the application of the first device, a register (i.e., account records) determine if the account number in the first transaction request is associated with an identifier associated with the first device. (See at least Coughlin, Fig. 2; [0028] where it is determined if the account number in the first transaction request (i.e., existing account) is associated with an identifier associated with the first device (i.e., device registered).)
determining whether the association between the account number and the identifier exists; (See at least Coughlin, Fig. 2; [0028] determining whether the communication device is registered for access may include searching for an identifier of the communication device)
in accordance with a determination that the association exists, requesting, by the first device, a sending of a message to the first device that requests authorization of a transaction corresponding to the first transaction request (See at least Coughlin, Fig. 4; [0042-0044]; where in accordance with a determination that the association exists (i.e., If the cell phone is not registered with the merchant service (negative output of block 402)) requesting, by the first device, a sending of a message to the first device that requests authorization of a transaction corresponding to the first transaction request (i.e., receive Pin and process the purchase request.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dragt and include Coughlin’s teachings in order to improve security to the system, thus, once the user has been validated, the account provider service may perform the task requested by the user. (Coughlin, [0025]).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16: The combination of Dragt and Coughlin disclose the method of claim 1, the medium of claim 8 and the device of claim 15. The combination further disclose; in accordance with a determination that the association does not exist: sending, to the second device, a request to prompt the first device to enter an identifier; and querying an identifier verification service to look up a name and/or address associated with the identifier. (See at least Coughlin, Fig. 2; Fig. 4; [0028-0030] is communication device registered for access with an existing account; obtain from the communication device, identification and authentication information for an existing account.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dragt and include Coughlin’s teachings in order to improve security to the system thus, once the user has been validated, the account provider service may perform the task requested by the user
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17: The combination of Dragt and Coughlin disclose the method of claim 1, the medium of claim 8 and the device of claim 15. The combination further disclose wherein the identifier comprises a mobile phone number of the first device. (See at least Dragt, [0055] an identifier of the mobile device 110, for example, a telephone number.).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18: The combination of Dragt and Coughlin disclose the method of claim 1, the medium of claim 8 and the device of claim 15. The combination further disclose wherein the first device comprises a buyer device and wherein the second device comprises a seller device. (See at least Dragt, Fig. 3; [0006]; [0023] the first device comprises a buyer device (i.e., a mobile device) and the second device comprises a seller device (i.e., POS device).)
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19: The combination of Dragt and Coughlin disclose the method of claim 4, the medium of claim 11 and the device of claim 18. The combination further disclose wherein the first transaction request comprises at least one of an amount, an indicator of the seller device, or other information regarding the transaction. (See at least Dragt, [0009-0010]; [0026] the first transaction request comprises at least one of an amount (i.e., transaction amount), an indicator of the seller device (i.e., identifier associated with the merchant), or other information regarding the transaction (i.e., transaction information).)
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20: The combination of Dragt and Coughlin disclose the method of claim 4, the medium of claim 11 and the device of claim 18. The combination further disclose wherein the indicator of the seller device comprises a merchant identifier. (See at least Dragt, [0042] where the indicator of the seller device comprises a merchant identifier (i.e., a merchant identifier).)
Regarding claims 7 and 14: The combination of Dragt and Coughlin disclose the method of claim 1, the medium of claim 8 and the device of claim 15. The combination further disclose wherein the account number in the first transaction request comprises a primary account number. (See at least Dragt, [0112] Examples of payment accounts that may be selected include, but are not limited to, stored value accounts, debit card accounts, credit card accounts, and the like.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manefee et al (US 2014/0114780 A1): Disclose If at step 420, the payment code is invalid, a valid payment code may be transmitted to the mobile device via, for example, an SMS message at step 450. If the mobile device does not have a code, a phone number or other identifier of the mobile device may be presented to the payment/offer system by a consumer at step 435. (Menefee, [0035])
Lapeek (US 20240161091 A1) Disclose: another embodiment, a mobile payment system for users is provided which converts the classification of certain card-not-present credit transactions to card-present transactions, comprising: a combined user digital wallet and a merchant terminal configured to dynamically connect in a remote-integrated fashion with the physical point-of-sale so as to facilitate a contactless consumer authenticated transaction via the user's access device. (Lapeek, [0109])
Gadotti (US 20140201086 A1) A system and method for conducting payment transaction using a mobile device equipped with a NFC interrogator, comprising: creating a payer user account in a server and associating a payer mobile device with the payer user account; registering, by the server, a payee NFC identity tag; recording, by the server, a payment transaction and associating the payment transaction record to the payee NFC identity tag; interrogating the payee NFC identity tag by the payer mobile device; transmitting the acquired identifier of the payee NFC identity tag to the server; matching the received identifier to the associated payment transaction record; retrieving and sending to the payer mobile device the matched associated payment transaction information; displaying the payment transaction information in the payer mobile device for user confirmation; transmitting the confirmed information and the payer mobile device identification data to the server to complete the payment transaction. (Gadotti, Abs.)
Wenkter et al. (US 20080167000 A1) disclose: FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating a method 600 for providing a balance alert to a mobile phone used in a transaction according to an embodiment of the present invention. In step 610, the consumer makes a contactless transaction with a mobile phone. A transaction may be initiated and performed as described above. The transaction is then completed. For example, a merchant may receive money from the debit/credit account that was used and that was associated with the mobile phone. (Menkter [0095])
Savolainen et al. (US 20170178116 A1) disclose: A remote transaction processing system, method and point of sale terminal are disclosed. The system includes a first data store, which includes a user device profile for a user device, the user device profile including routing data for routing communications to the user device. Upon receiving a payment request designating a user device for a transaction with a merchant, the remote transaction processing system is arranged to retrieve a Point-of-Sale, PoS, configuration profile corresponding to the merchant and retrieve the user device profile from the first data store corresponding to the designated user device. The remote transaction processing system is arranged to communicate a PoS configuration dependent on the PoS configuration profile to the user device in dependence on the routing data, the PoS configuration being executable by the user device to cause the user device to act as a PoS terminal for the transaction with the merchant. (Savolainen, Abs.)
O’Regan at al. (US 20160132880 A1 ) In a second step (102), the user (201) transmits his or her payment credentials to a merchant (204) in a normal manner. With contactless payment transactions with the assistance of an NFC-enabled mobile device, this will occur when the user presents their NFC-enabled mobile phone (202) to a NFC-reader enabled point of sale of a merchant (204), or brings the mobile phone close enough to the NFC-reader for the mobile phone to transmit the payment credentials to the merchant's NFC reader. (O’Regan, [0076])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698