DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Introduction
2. The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant's communications received September 20, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continuation
3. This application is a continuation Application of US Application No. 15/334054, filed 10/25/2016, now U.S. Patent No. 11176558. 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. 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 Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents). Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Double Patenting
4. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and /n re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http:/Awww.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
5. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 13-14 of U.S. Patent No. US 11/176558).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before". in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One:
Under Step one of an analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 8 is a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program executable by at least one computer, and claim 15 is a system claim. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
Step 2A. Prong 1:
The claims disclose the abstract idea of electronic scheduling of payment transaction submissions.
The claims recite the limitations in the abstract idea indicated in non-bold and the additional elements in bold.
Claim 1 recites:
receiving, by a processor, an electronic authorization request for a transaction to be submitted and at least one transaction parameter;
generating, by the processor, a submission schedule to submit the electronic authorization request based on a statistical analysis of a dataset of historical electronic authorization request processing results from a transaction data database, wherein the submission schedule is based on the at least one transaction parameter; and
transmitting, by the processor, the electronic authorization request within the submission schedule.
Claim 2 further recites performing, by the processor, the statistical analysis of at least one of a Bank Identification Number (BIN), a Merchant Classification Code (MCC), and a Reason Response Code (RRC) received with a denial message from a previous electronic authorization request in the dataset of processing results for historical electronic authorization requests.
Claim 3 further recites wherein the electronic authorization request is associated with a merchant, and wherein the electronic authorization request identifies account information for an account that is associated with a payment card network and an issuer processor.
Claim 4 further recites wherein the submission schedule identifies any of a day of the week for submission of the electronic authorization request, a day of the month for submission of the electronic authorization request, or a periodic schedule for submission of the electronic authorization request.
Claim 5 further recites further comprising: receiving an electronic authorization result; and
updating the transaction data database using the received electronic authorization result.
Claim 6 further recites retransmitting, by the processor, the electronic authorization request when the electronic authorization result indicates a failure of the electronic authorization request.
Claim 7 further recites wherein: the electronic authorization request includes a specified time window, the submission schedule further identifies an optimal time slot within the specified time window within which the submitted electronic authorization request is to be transmitted, and the transmitting, by the processor, the electronic authorization request includes transmitting the electronic authorization request within the optimal time slot identified by the submission schedule.
Claim 8 recites receiving, by a processor, an electronic authorization request for a transaction to be submitted and at least one transaction parameter;
generating, by the processor, a submission schedule to submit the electronic authorization request based on a statistical analysis of a dataset of historical electronic authorization request processing results from a transaction data database, wherein the submission schedule is based on the at least one transaction parameter; and
transmitting, by the processor, the electronic authorization request within the submission schedule.
Claim 9 further recites wherein the method further comprises: performing, by the processor, the statistical analysis of at least one of a Bank Identification Number (BIN), a Merchant Classification Code (MCC), and a Reason Response Code (RRC) received with a denial message from a previous electronic authorization request in the dataset of processing results for historical electronic authorization requests.
Claim 10 further recites wherein the electronic authorization request is associated with a merchant, and wherein the electronic authorization request identifies account information for an account that is associated with a payment card network and an issuer processor.
Claim 11 further recites wherein the submission schedule identifies any of a day of the week for submission of the electronic authorization request, a day of the month for submission of the electronic authorization request, or a periodic schedule for submission of the electronic authorization request.
Claim 12 further recites wherein the method further comprises: receiving an authorization result; and updating the transaction data database using the received electronic authorization result.
Claim 13 further recites wherein the method further comprises:
retransmitting, by the processor, the electronic authorization request if the authorization result indicates a failure of the electronic authorization request.
Claim 14 further recites wherein: the electronic authorization request includes a specified time window, the submission schedule further identifies an optimal time slot within the specified time window within which the submitted electronic authorization request is to be transmitted, and the transmitting, by the processor, the electronic authorization request includes transmitting the electronic authorization request within the optimal time slot identified by the submission schedule.
Claim 15 recites receive, by the processor, an electronic authorization request for a transaction to be submitted and at least one transaction parameter;
generate, by the processor, a submission schedule to submit the electronic authorization request based on a statistical analysis of a dataset of historical electronic authorization request processing results from a transaction data database, wherein the submission schedule is based on the at least one transaction parameter; and transmit, by the processor, the electronic authorization request within the submission schedule.
Claim 16 further recites perform, by the processor, the statistical analysis of at least one of a Bank Identification Number (BIN), a Merchant Classification Code (MCC), and a Reason Response Code (RRC) received with a denial message from a previous electronic authorization request in the dataset of processing results for historical electronic authorization requests.
Claim 17 further recites wherein the electronic authorization request is associated with a merchant, and wherein the electronic authorization request identifies account information for an account that is associated with a payment card network and an issuer processor.
Claim 18 further recites wherein the electronic authorization request includes a specified time window, the submission schedule further identifies an optimal time slot within the specified time window within which the submitted electronic authorization request is to be transmitted, and the instructions executed by the processor further cause the processor to transmit the electronic authorization request within the optimal time slot identified by the submission schedule.
Claim 19 further recites wherein the instructions executed by the processor further cause the processor to: receive an electronic authorization result; and
update the transaction data database using the received electronic authorization result.
Claim 20 further recites wherein the instructions executed by the processor further cause the processor to:
retransmit, by the processor, the electronic authorization request when the electronic authorization result indicates a failure of the electronic authorization request.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as performing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations) because it amounts to the concept of generating, a submission schedule to submit the electronic authorization request based on a statistical analysis of a dataset of historical electronic authorization request processing results from a transaction data, wherein the submission schedule is based on the at least one transaction parameter”. Therefore, the claim is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity.
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in nonbold, and the bold limitations are "additional elements."
Claim 1 recites:
receiving, by a processor, an electronic authorization request for a transaction to be submitted and at least one transaction parameter;
generating, by the processor, a submission schedule to submit the electronic authorization request based on a statistical analysis of a dataset of historical electronic authorization request processing results from a transaction data database, wherein the submission schedule is based on the at least one transaction parameter; and
transmitting, by the processor, the electronic authorization request within the submission schedule.
Claim 2 further recites performing, by the processor, the statistical analysis of at least one of a Bank Identification Number (BIN), a Merchant Classification Code (MCC), and a Reason Response Code (RRC) received with a denial message from a previous electronic authorization request in the dataset of processing results for historical electronic authorization requests.
Claim 3 further recites wherein the electronic authorization request is associated with a merchant, and wherein the electronic authorization request identifies account information for an account that is associated with a payment card network and an issuer processor.
Claim 4 further recites wherein the submission schedule identifies any of a day of the week for submission of the electronic authorization request, a day of the month for submission of the electronic authorization request, or a periodic schedule for submission of the electronic authorization request.
Claim 5 further recites further comprising: receiving an electronic authorization result; and
updating the transaction data database using the received electronic authorization result.
Claim 6 further recites retransmitting, by the processor, the electronic authorization request when the electronic authorization result indicates a failure of the electronic authorization request.
Claim 7 further recites wherein: the electronic authorization request includes a specified time window, the submission schedule further identifies an optimal time slot within the specified time window within which the submitted electronic authorization request is to be transmitted, and the transmitting, by the processor, the electronic authorization request includes transmitting the electronic authorization request within the optimal time slot identified by the submission schedule.
Claim 8 recites receiving, by a processor, an electronic authorization request for a transaction to be submitted and at least one transaction parameter;
generating, by the processor, a submission schedule to submit the electronic authorization request based on a statistical analysis of a dataset of historical electronic authorization request processing results from a transaction data database, wherein the submission schedule is based on the at least one transaction parameter; and
transmitting, by the processor, the electronic authorization request within the submission schedule.
Claim 9 further recites wherein the method further comprises: performing, by the processor, the statistical analysis of at least one of a Bank Identification Number (BIN), a Merchant Classification Code (MCC), and a Reason Response Code (RRC) received with a denial message from a previous electronic authorization request in the dataset of processing results for historical electronic authorization requests.
Claim 10 further recites wherein the electronic authorization request is associated with a merchant, and wherein the electronic authorization request identifies account information for an account that is associated with a payment card network and an issuer processor.
Claim 11 further recites wherein the submission schedule identifies any of a day of the week for submission of the electronic authorization request, a day of the month for submission of the electronic authorization request, or a periodic schedule for submission of the electronic authorization request.
Claim 12 further recites wherein the method further comprises: receiving an authorization result; and updating the transaction data database using the received electronic authorization result.
Claim 13 further recites wherein the method further comprises:
retransmitting, by the processor, the electronic authorization request if the authorization result indicates a failure of the electronic authorization request.
Claim 14 further recites wherein: the electronic authorization request includes a specified time window, the submission schedule further identifies an optimal time slot within the specified time window within which the submitted electronic authorization request is to be transmitted, and the transmitting, by the processor, the electronic authorization request includes transmitting the electronic authorization request within the optimal time slot identified by the submission schedule.
Claim 15 recites receive, by the processor, an electronic authorization request for a transaction to be submitted and at least one transaction parameter;
generate, by the processor, a submission schedule to submit the electronic authorization request based on a statistical analysis of a dataset of historical electronic authorization request processing results from a transaction data database, wherein the submission schedule is based on the at least one transaction parameter; and transmit, by the processor, the electronic authorization request within the submission schedule.
Claim 16 further recites perform, by the processor, the statistical analysis of at least one of a Bank Identification Number (BIN), a Merchant Classification Code (MCC), and a Reason Response Code (RRC) received with a denial message from a previous electronic authorization request in the dataset of processing results for historical electronic authorization requests.
Claim 17 further recites wherein the electronic authorization request is associated with a merchant, and wherein the electronic authorization request identifies account information for an account that is associated with a payment card network and an issuer processor.
Claim 18 further recites wherein the electronic authorization request includes a specified time window, the submission schedule further identifies an optimal time slot within the specified time window within which the submitted electronic authorization request is to be transmitted, and the instructions executed by the processor further cause the processor to transmit the electronic authorization request within the optimal time slot identified by the submission schedule.
Claim 19 further recites wherein the instructions executed by the processor further cause the processor to:
receive an electronic authorization result; and
update the transaction data database using the received electronic authorization result.
Claim 20 further recites wherein the instructions executed by the processor further cause the processor to:
retransmit, by the processor, the electronic authorization request when the electronic authorization result indicates a failure of the electronic authorization request.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in the claims, the claims recite additional elements including a generic data gathering step of a processor and database.
The claimed “processor” “database” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system. Performing steps or functions by a processor merely limits the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers to process data (i.e. payment transaction data).
Performing steps by a generic machine, or server computing device merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (1 ).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Performance of the claimed steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claims does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
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. Thus the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a "processor" with "database", does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be one or more of a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed processor is noted to a be a generic computer for determining a plurality of similarity values associated with the plurality of creators based on the generated data representation, wherein each similarity value of the plurality of similarity values comprises a similarity of the first creator with a creator of the plurality of creators. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed "processor", and "database" are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. 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. Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 1. Dependent claims 9-14 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 8, and dependent claims 16-20 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 15. The claimed steps do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions in view of MPEP 2106 .05(d)(11). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
9 . NOTE: Currently there are no outstanding prior art rejections under 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC§ 103.
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mascavage (WO 03042893 A1) teaches a method and system authorizing an online purchase between a customer and a vendor site. Transaction information is received from the vendor site, a new web browser window is automatically opened for the customer. Authenticating information is received from the customer. A transaction amount is presented in the new web browser window, whereby the customer can authorize the transaction amount through interaction with the new web browser window. Authorization is received from the customer for a transfer of at least the transaction amount, wherein the transfer corresponds to the online purchase. The vendor site of is notified authorization and authentication.
Krikorian (WO 2006026418 A2) teaches a method and system for sending the payment file, including the unique transaction number, from a buyer's ERP system to an acquirer for payment authorization and settlement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROMAIN JEANTY whose telephone number is (571)272-6732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM to 5:30PM.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571 272-6787. 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.
/RJ/
/ROMAIN JEANTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624