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 .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a method, claims 10-16 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and claims 17-20 are directed to a system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites: A method, comprising:
receiving, by a merchant computer program, a payment instrument from a customer;
initiating, by the merchant computer program, a session with the customer by providing a session identifier for the session to a customer electronic device;
during the session:
receiving, by the merchant computer program, a plurality of transactions from the customer, each with the session identifier; and
authorizing, by the merchant computer program, each of the plurality of transactions with an issuer of the payment instrument;
at an end of the session:
aggregating, by the merchant computer program, the transactions that were authorized by the issuer; and
submitting, by the merchant computer program, the aggregated transactions to the issuer for payment.
(Additional element(s) emphasized in bold)
The above claim describes a process for: receiving, by a merchant, a payment instrument from a customer; initiating a shopping session between the customer and the merchant by providing a session identifier; during the session: receiving a plurality of transactions from the customer, each with the identifier; authorizing each of the transactions with an issuer of the payment instrument; at an end of a session: aggregating the authorized transactions; and submitting the aggregated transactions to the issuer for settlement/payment. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of transaction processing and aggregation (e.g. automated clearinghouse) which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas under the “fundamental economic principles and practices” sub-grouping in prong one of step 2A. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04), the additional elements of the claim such as merchant computer program and customer electronic device merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The use of a processor/computer (merchant computer program, customer electronic device) as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional elements of merchant computer program and customer electronic device do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the use of a merchant computer program and customer electronic device does no more than use a processor/computer to implement and/or automate the judicial exception. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of processing transactions via automated clearinghouse (ACH). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 do no more than describe characteristics of data (e.g. types of transaction limits) and further steps to perform the judicial exception (e.g. transaction authorization via PIN). Furthermore, the additional element of periodically receiving location data of the customer electronic device does no more than generally link the judicial exception to a particular field of use (e.g. in-person shopping at a merchant location) due to reciting such elements at no more than a high level of generality. Accordingly, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
The same analysis pertaining to the abstract idea of processing and aggregating transactions holds true for claims 10-20 as well, with the additional elements of memory and processor merely using a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 10-20 are also not patent eligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20190147430 "Chen") in view of Lakkapragada et al. (US 20080162365 "Lakkapragada").
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Chen discloses: A method and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, comprising: receiving, by a merchant computer program, a payment instrument from a customer (Fig. 6, 0020, 0060);
initiating, by the merchant computer program, a session with the customer (Fig. 6, 0060-0061)...
during the session: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a plurality of transactions from the customer, each with the session identifier (Fig. 6, 0061-0064);
at an end of the session: aggregating, by the merchant computer program, the transactions that were authorized by the issuer; and submitting, by the merchant computer program, the aggregated transactions to the issuer for payment (Fig. 6, 0020, 0062).
Chen does not disclose: ...providing a session identifier for the session to a customer electronic device;
and authorizing, by the merchant computer program, each of the plurality of transactions with an issuer of the payment instrument.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lakkapragada discloses: receiving, by a merchant computer program, a payment instrument from a customer (Fig. 4-5, 0016-0017, 0025, 0061, 0063);
initiating, by the merchant computer program, a session with the customer by providing a session identifier for the session to a customer electronic device (Fig. 4-5, 0025, 0042, 0064-0065);
during the session: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a plurality of transactions from the customer, each with the session identifier; and authorizing, by the merchant computer program, each of the plurality of transactions with an issuer of the payment instrument (Fig. 4-5, 0050-0056, 0066-0070, 0074).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1 and 10 disclosed by Chen by including providing a session identifier and authorizing each of the plurality of transactions as disclosed by Lakkapragada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow customized aggregation constraints/rules (Lakkapragada 0046).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Chen in view of Lakkapragada discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 10. Chen further discloses: ...applying, by the merchant computer program, the transaction limit to each transaction before authorizing the transaction with the issuer (Fig. 6, 0061, 0063).
Lakkapragada further discloses: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a transaction limit from the customer (0026-0037).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 13, Chen in view of Lakkapragada discloses all limitations of claims 3 and 12. Lakkapragada further discloses: wherein the transaction limit is a maximum number of transactions during the session, a maximum dollar amount for each transaction during the session, or a maximum total dollar amount for all transactions during the session (0026-0037).
Chen further discloses: wherein the transaction limit is a maximum total dollar amount for all transactions during the session (0061-0064).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Chen in view of Lakkapragada discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 10. Lakkapragada further discloses: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a session duration from the customer, and ending, by the merchant computer program, the session at completion of the session duration (0026-0038).
Chen further discloses: ending, by the merchant computer program, the session at completion of the session duration (Fig. 6, 0062).
Claims 2, 8, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lakkapragada as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Tetali et al. (US 20180293579 "Tetali").
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Chen in view of Lakkapragada discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Chen in view of Lakkapragada does not disclose: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a customer PIN with the payment instrument;
wherein the merchant computer program authorizes one of the transactions with the issuer of the payment instrument using the customer PIN.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tetali discloses: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a customer PIN with the payment instrument (0018, 0023, 0046, 0048);
wherein the merchant computer program authorizes one of the transactions with the issuer of the payment instrument using the customer PIN (0018, 0023, 0046, 0048).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 2 and 11 disclosed by Chen in view of Lakkapragada by including authorizing at least one transaction with a customer PIN as disclosed by Tetali. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide different levels of authentication for transactions (Tetali 0018).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Chen in view of Lakkapragada discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Chen in view of Lakkapragada does not disclose: receiving, by the merchant computer program, rules from the issuer;
and applying, by the merchant computer program, the rules to each transaction before authorizing each transaction with the issuer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tetali discloses: receiving, by the merchant computer program, rules from the issuer (0023, 0046, 0048, 0065);
and applying, by the merchant computer program, the rules to each transaction before authorizing each transaction with the issuer (0023, 0062, 0065).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 8 and 15 disclosed by Chen in view of Lakkapragada by including receiving and applying transaction rules from an issuer as disclosed by Tetali. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide additional security/authentication to transactions over certain issuer-set limits (Tetali 0065).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20190147430 "Chen") in view of Lakkapragada et al. (US 20080162365 "Lakkapragada") and Tetali et al. (US 20180293579 "Tetali").
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses: A system, comprising: a customer electronic device associated with a customer; a merchant system executing a merchant computer program; and an issuer electronic device executing an issuer computer program (Fig. 1, 0025-0026); wherein:
the merchant computer program is configured to receive a payment instrument from the customer (Fig. 6, 0020, 0060);
the merchant computer program is configured to initiate a session with the customer (Fig. 6, 0060-0061)...
during the session: the merchant computer program is configured to receive a plurality of transactions from the customer, each with the session identifier (Fig. 6, 0061-0064);
the merchant computer program is configured to apply the rules to each of the plurality of transactions (Fig. 6, 0061, 0063);
at an end of the session: the merchant computer program is configured to aggregate the transactions that were authorized by the issuer computer program (Fig. 6, 0020, 0062);
the merchant computer program is configured to submit the aggregated transactions to the issuer computer program for payment (Fig. 6, 0020, 0062);
and the issuer computer program is configured to initiate payment for the aggregated transactions (Fig. 6, 0020, 0062).
Chen does not disclose: ...providing a session identifier for the session to the customer electronic device;
the merchant computer program is configured to authorize each of the plurality of transactions with the issuer computer program in response to the transaction passing the rules;
and the issuer computer program is configured to authorize each of the transactions...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lakkapragada discloses: A system, comprising: a customer electronic device associated with a customer; a merchant system executing a merchant computer program; and an issuer electronic device executing an issuer computer program (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, 0016-0017); wherein:
the merchant computer program is configured to receive a payment instrument from the customer (Fig. 4-5, 0025, 0061, 0063);
the merchant computer program is configured to initiate a session with the customer by providing a session identifier for the session to the customer electronic device (Fig. 4-5, 0025, 0042, 0064-0065);
during the session: the merchant computer program is configured to receive a plurality of transactions from the customer, each with the session identifier (Fig. 4-5, 0050-0056, 0066-0070, 0074);
the merchant computer program is configured to authorize each of the plurality of transactions with the issuer computer program in response to the transaction passing the rules (Fig. 4-5, 0050-0056, 0066-0070, 0074);
and the issuer computer program is configured to authorize each of the transactions (Fig. 4-5, 0050-0056, 0066-0070, 0074)...
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 17 disclosed by Chen by including providing a session identifier and authorizing each of the plurality of transactions as disclosed by Lakkapragada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow customized aggregation constraints/rules (Lakkapragada 0046).
Chen in view of Lakkapragada does not disclose: the merchant computer program is configured to receive rules from the issuer computer program;
...return an authorization decision to the merchant computer program.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tetali discloses: the merchant computer program is configured to receive rules from the issuer computer program (0023, 0046, 0048, 0065);
and the issuer computer program is configured to authorize each of the transactions and to return an authorization decision to the merchant computer program (0063-0064).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 17 disclosed by Chen in view of Lakkapragada by including receiving and applying transaction rules from an issuer as disclosed by Tetali. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide additional security/authentication to transactions over certain issuer-set limits (Tetali 0065).
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Tetali discloses all limitations of claim 17. Chen further discloses: ...apply the transaction limit to each transaction before authorizing the transaction with the issuer computer program; wherein the transaction limit is...a maximum total dollar amount for all transactions during the session (Fig. 6, 0061-0064).
Lakkapragada further discloses: receive a transaction limit from the customer...wherein the transaction limit is a maximum number of transactions during the session, a maximum dollar amount for each transaction during the session, or a maximum total dollar amount for all transactions during the session (0026-0037).
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Tetali discloses all limitations of claim 17. Chen further discloses: ...ending, by the merchant computer program, the session at completion of the session duration (Fig. 6, 0062).
Lakkapragada further discloses: receiving, by the merchant computer program, a session duration from the customer, and ending, by the merchant computer program, the session at completion of the session duration (0026-0038).
Claims 9, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over at least Chen in view of Lakkapragada as applied to claims 1, 10, and 17 above, and further in view of Evans (US 20160092864 "Evans").
Regarding claims 9, 16, and 20, Chen in view of Lakkapragada discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 10 and Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Tetali discloses all limitations of claim 17.
Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Tetali does not disclose: periodically receiving, by the merchant computer program, a location of the customer electronic device;
and ending, by the merchant computer program, the session in response to the location of the customer electronic device being outside of a merchant location.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Evans discloses: periodically receiving, by the merchant computer program, a location of the customer electronic device (Fig. 2, 0025-0027, 0030-0032);
and ending, by the merchant computer program, the session in response to the location of the customer electronic device being outside of a merchant location (Fig. 2, 0027, 0031-0032).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 9, 16, and 20 disclosed by Chen in view of Lakkapragada and Tetali by including receiving a device location and ending the session upon leaving the merchant location as disclosed by Evans. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to automatically charge a customer upon exiting a merchant location (Evans 0010).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nathanel et al. (US 20130232017) generally discloses systems and methods of electronic payment based on a location-based code.
Sandraz (US 20160180299) generally discloses a payment unification service for aggregation and settlement of authorized transactions.
Jones (US 20170193507) generally discloses a method for aggregation of transactions via a centralized aggregator server.
Spector et al. (US 20180268399) generally discloses systems and methods for an electronic wallet backend to aggregate received transactions via an API.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR RAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:00 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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571)-272-6708. 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.
/T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697