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 .
Election/Restrictions
Examiner notes the election of group I, claims 1-12 and 24-26, with traverse. The Applicant’s argument for traversal is not persuasive because the different groups would require different and divergent search strategies, which is a burden on the Examiner and not a burden on the public to examine multiple inventions together. The restriction is now made final.
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 1-12 and 24-26 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, claim 1 is directed to a “credit-based transaction processing method, applied to a transaction platform”.
Claim 1 is directed to the concept of “processing a transaction” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (processing a transaction is a fundamental economic practice) and commercial or legal interactions (a transaction is a commercial or legal interaction such as sales activities or behaviors and business relations)” in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 1 recites querying, based on a credit payment channel selected by an institutional member of an institution for a commodity order, a payment configuration of the credit payment channel configured by a merchant; determining a payment type of the institutional member in the credit payment channel based on the payment configuration and credit data; sending a payment request for the commodity order to a payment platform upon determining that a payment condition in the payment type is triggered, to make a credit payment for the commodity order based on a credit account of the institutional member in the credit payment channel; and obtaining a to-be-settled bill generated by the payment platform based on a credit payment result, to perform fund settlement processing with the credit payment channel for the to-be-settled bill by using an institutional account of the institution. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as a processor, a memory, a payment platform represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than ‘Apply it’ the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of processing a transaction.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of processing a transaction using computer technology (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-12 and 25-26 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10, 11, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Balasubramanian US 2009/0313147.
As per claims 1 and 24:
Balasubramanian discloses a credit-based transaction processing method, applied to a transaction platform, wherein the method comprises: querying, based on a credit payment channel selected by an institutional member of an institution for a commodity order, a payment configuration of the credit payment channel configured by a merchant (Fig 2 ¶¶[0025], [0027]);
determining a payment type of the institutional member in the credit payment channel based on the payment configuration and credit data (Fig 2 ¶ [0027] ‘payment options’ and ‘payment information’);
sending a payment request for the commodity order to a payment platform upon determining that a payment condition in the payment type is triggered, to make a credit payment for the commodity order based on a credit account of the institutional member in the credit payment channel (Fig 2, ¶ [0028] “the merchant forwards the transaction information to the UMP for further processing”); and
obtaining a to-be-settled bill generated by the payment platform based on a credit payment result, to perform fund settlement processing with the credit payment channel for the to-be-settled bill by using an institutional account of the institution (Fig 2, ¶¶ [0029]-[0030], [0034]-[0035]).
As per claim 6:
Balasubramanian further discloses the credit-based transaction processing method according to claim 1, wherein the performing fund settlement processing with the credit payment channel for the to-be-settled bill by using an institutional account of the institution comprises: obtaining a settlement request submitted by the institution for the to-be-settled bill (Fig 4 ‘216’, ¶¶ [0072]-[0073] ; and
in response to the settlement request, transferring out funds from the institutional account based on a bill amount in the to-be-settled bill, and transferring the transferred-out funds to the credit account (¶¶ [0072]-[0073], Fig 4 ‘216’).
As per claim 10:
Balasubramanian further discloses the credit-based transaction processing method according to claim 1, wherein before the step of querying, based on a credit payment channel selected by an institutional member of an institution for a commodity order, a payment configuration of the credit payment channel configured by a merchant is performed, the method further comprises: creating a commodity order of a commodity based on the commodity selected by the institutional member from a commodity list, and delivering the commodity order to the institutional member (Fig 4 ‘obtain transaction information’, ¶ [0050], [0071], fig 3); and
determining a credit payment channel selected by the institutional member from a payment channel list for the commodity order (Fig 2 ‘alternative payment providers’, ¶ [0050], [0071], fig 2).
As per claim 11:
Balasubramanian further discloses the credit-based transaction processing method according to claim 1, wherein the credit payment channel is selected after the commodity order is submitted based on an institution code of the institution (Fig 4 and fig 2 show the transaction information is submitted initially before the payment method is selected).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7-9, 12, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian US 2009/0313147 in view of Kaditz US 11710179.
As per claims 2 and 25:
Balasubramanian fails to explicitly disclose but Kaditz does disclose the credit-based transaction processing method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a payment type of the institutional member in the credit payment channel based on the payment configuration and credit data comprises:
querying institutional credit data of the institution or member credit data of the institutional member, and determining a credit interval that matches the institutional credit data or the member credit data in the payment configuration (Fig 10, col. 13 ll. 14-16); and
determining the payment type of the institutional member in the credit payment channel based on the credit interval (Fig 10 col. 13 ll. 16-21, see also col. 13 ll. 24-26 “intervals”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Kaditz in Balasubramanian since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both are in the art of transaction processing and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine the art of Kaditz to improve the delayed payments that is disclosed in Balasubramanian.
As per claim 3:
Balasubramanian further discloses the credit-based transaction processing method according to claim 2, wherein after the step of determining a payment type of the institutional member in the credit payment channel based on the payment configuration and credit data is performed, and before the step of sending a payment request for the commodity order to a payment platform upon determining that a payment condition in the payment type is triggered, to make a credit payment for the commodity order based on a credit account of the institutional member in the credit payment channel is performed, the method further comprises:
generating a delayed payment order based on the commodity order and a delayed payment time, and sending the delayed payment order to the payment platform (¶¶ [0034]-[0036], Fig 4 ‘212’, ‘214); and
receiving a payment confirmation message returned by the payment platform, generating a transaction success reminder based on the payment confirmation message, and delivering the transaction success reminder to the institutional member (Fig 4 214, 216, 218, ¶ [0066] “The method includes the core steps of obtaining transaction information (Step 202), returning a redirection URL (Step 210), obtaining a transaction message (Step 214), performing the transaction (Step 216) and returning the results from performing the transaction (Step 218).”, ¶¶ [0073]-[0074]).
As per claim 4:
Balasubramanian fails to explicitly disclose but Kaditz does disclose the credit-based transaction processing method according to claim 3, wherein after the step of receiving a payment confirmation message returned by the payment platform, generating a transaction success reminder based on the payment confirmation message, and delivering the transaction success reminder to the institutional member is performed, the method further comprises:
detecting whether the delayed payment time expires (Fig 32&33, col. 20 ll. 30-46); and
upon detecting that the delayed payment time expires, determining that a payment condition in a delayed payment type is triggered (Fig 32&33, col. 20 ll. 30-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Kaditz in Balasubramanian since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both are in the art of transaction processing and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine the art of Kaditz to improve the delayed payments that is disclosed in Balasubramanian.
As per claim 5:
Balasubramanian fails to explicitly disclose but Kaditz does disclose the credit-based transaction processing method according to claim 2, wherein after the step of determining a payment type of the institutional member in the credit payment channel based on the payment configuration and credit data is performed, and before the step of sending a payment request for the commodity order to a payment platform upon determining that a payment condition in the payment type is triggered, to make a credit payment for the commodity order based on a credit account of the institutional member in the credit payment channel is performed, the method further comprises:
generating a real-time payment reminder, and delivering the real-time payment reminder to the institutional member (col. 19 ll. 38-44, 64-67, Fig 32); and
when a payment instruction submitted after the institutional member triggers the real-time payment reminder is detected, determining that a payment condition in a real-time payment type is triggered (col. 19 ll. 54-59, see also col. 20 ll. 36-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Kaditz in Balasubramanian since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both are in the art of transaction processing and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine the art of Kaditz to improve the delayed payments that is disclosed in Balasubramanian.
As per claims 7 and 26:
Balasubramanian fails to explicitly disclose but Kaditz does disclose the credit-based transaction processing method according to claim 1, wherein after the step of obtaining a to-be-settled bill generated by the payment platform based on a credit payment result, to perform fund settlement processing with the credit payment channel for the to-be-settled bill by using an institutional account of the institution is performed, the method further comprises: returning a to-be-settled bill list of the institutional member to the institution based on a bill query request submitted by the institution;
determining a target bill selected by the institution from the to-be-settled bill list, and sending the target bill to the payment platform (col. 19 ll. 38-44, 64-67, Fig 32, see also col. 19 ll. 54-59, col. 20 ll. 36-41); and
sending a settlement request to the payment platform based on a settlement instruction
submitted by the institution for a settlement amount returned by the payment platform, to perform settlement processing on the target bill (col. 19 ll. 38-44, 64-67, Fig 32, see also col. 19 ll. 54-59, col. 20 ll. 36-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Kaditz in Balasubramanian since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both are in the art of transaction processing and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine the art of Kaditz to improve the delayed payments that is disclosed in Balasubramanian.
As per claim 8:
Balasubramanian fails to explicitly disclose but Kaditz does disclose the credit-based transaction processing method according to claim 7, wherein after receiving the target bill, the payment platform performs the following operations: detecting whether a fund repayment period recorded in the target bill expires (col. 19 ll. 38-44, 64-67, Fig 32); and
upon detecting that the fund repayment period recorded in the target bill does not expire, returning a bill amount recorded in the target bill to the transaction platform as the settlement amount (col. 19 ll. 38-44, 64-67, Fig 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Kaditz in Balasubramanian since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both are in the art of transaction processing and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine the art of Kaditz to improve the delayed payments that is disclosed in Balasubramanian.
As per claim 9:
Balasubramanian further discloses returning the actual repayment amount to the transaction platform as the settlement amount (¶¶ [0039]-[0040] the transaction amount). Balasubramanian fails to explicitly disclose but Kaditz does disclose the credit-based transaction processing method according to claim 8, wherein upon detecting that the fund repayment period recorded in the target bill expires, the following operations are performed: calculating an actual repayment amount of the target bill based on the bill amount, the fund repayment period, and a calculation time in the target bill (col. 19 ll. 38-44, 64-67, Fig 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Kaditz in Balasubramanian since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both are in the art of transaction processing and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine the art of Kaditz to improve the delayed payments that is disclosed in Balasubramanian.
As per claim 12:
Balasubramanian further discloses the credit-based transaction processing method according to claim 1, wherein after the step of obtaining a to-be-settled bill generated by the payment platform based on a credit payment result, to perform fund settlement processing with the credit payment channel for the to-be-settled bill by using an institutional account of the institution is performed, the method further comprises: transferring funds from a member account of the institutional member to the credit account based on a fund repayment instruction submitted after the institutional member triggers the fund repayment reminder (¶¶ [0072]-[0073]);
Balasubramanian fails to explicitly disclose but Kaditz does disclose generating a fund repayment reminder based on the to-be-settled bill, and delivering the fund repayment reminder to the institutional member (col. 19 ll. 38-44, 64-67, Fig 32); and
generating a to-be-repaid bill based on a fund transfer result and the to-be-settled bill (col. 19 ll. 38-44, 64-67, Fig 32, see also Fig 39), and
delivering the to-be-repaid bill to the institution (col. 19 ll. 38-44, 64-67, Fig 32, see Fig 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Kaditz in Balasubramanian since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both are in the art of transaction processing and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine the art of Kaditz to improve the delayed payments that is disclosed in Balasubramanian.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu CN 116362732A discloses an order payment processing method and device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights