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 .
Acknowledgments
The application filed on 10/17/24 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1-5 are withdrawn.
Claims 6-13 are rejected.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Specifically, Applicant claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 120 to U.S. application no. 16/791,972 filed on 02/14/2020 (now abandoned), and under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to provisional application no. 62/823,305 filed on 03/25/2019.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-5, drawn to a method for verifying information associated with a subject, via a verification computer system, comprising receiving a subscription application from a new member operating a new computer system; generating a random passcode; transmitting the passcode to a device interface associated with the new computer system; determining whether a geolocation of the device interface is within a threshold distance of a zip code associated with a current residence of the new member; determining an amount of time the device interface is not within the threshold distance; performing a background check on the new member when the amount of time exceeds a threshold time; receiving, via an electronic communication network, an alert from an intelligent alert system, the alert comprising details of a transaction between a payer and a payee and being generated in response to the payer rejecting the transaction via a mobile interface, the details of the transaction including a financial instrument number and/or an account number; and broadcasting, to a group of subscribed computer systems via the electronic communication network, a first message including instructions to block all future transactions associated with the financial instrument number and/or the account number, and corresponding system and computer-readable medium, classified in G06Q 20/385, G06Q 20/4016, G06Q 20/0855, G06Q 20/383, and G06Q 20/3224.
II. Claims 6-13, drawn to a method for protecting against financial crimes, comprising transmitting, from a third computer system to a second computer system, a second passcode; receiving, at the third computer system from a first computer system, a first passcode in response to transmitting the second passcode; receiving, at the third computer system from the first computer system, a first financial instrument number; receiving, at the third computer system from a fourth computer system, a second financial instrument number and a description of a transaction; transmitting, from the third computer system to the first computer system, the description of the transaction when the first passcode corresponds to the second passcode and the first financial instrument number matches the second financial instrument number; receiving, at the third computer system from the first computer system, a message in response to transmitting the description of the transaction; and transmitting, from the third computer system to the fourth computer system, an instruction corresponding to the message, classified in G06Q 20/385, G06Q 20/4016, G06Q 20/0855, G06Q 20/383, G06Q 20/401 (or G06Q 20/4014) and G06Q 20/4097.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to a related process/ system/computer-readable medium and method. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect, e.g., Invention I includes receiving a subscription application from a new member operating a new computer system; generating a random passcode; transmitting the passcode to a device interface associated with the new computer system; determining whether a geolocation of the device interface is within a threshold distance of a zip code associated with a current residence of the new member; determining an amount of time the device interface is not within the threshold distance; performing a background check on the new member when the amount of time exceeds a threshold time; receiving, via an electronic communication network, an alert from an intelligent alert system, the alert comprising details of a transaction between a payer and a payee and being generated in response to the payer rejecting the transaction via a mobile interface, the details of the transaction including a financial instrument number and/or an account number; and broadcasting, to a group of subscribed computer systems via the electronic communication network, a first message including instructions to block all future transactions associated with the financial instrument number and/or the account number, while Invention II includes transmitting, from a third computer system to a second computer system, a second passcode; receiving, at the third computer system from a first computer system, a first passcode in response to transmitting the second passcode; receiving, at the third computer system from the first computer system, a first financial instrument number; receiving, at the third computer system from a fourth computer system, a second financial instrument number and a description of a transaction; transmitting, from the third computer system to the first computer system, the description of the transaction when the first passcode corresponds to the second passcode and the first financial instrument number matches the second financial instrument number; receiving, at the third computer system from the first computer system, a message in response to transmitting the description of the transaction; and transmitting, from the third computer system to the fourth computer system, an instruction corresponding to the message. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
⦁ the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Alan Lenkin on December 1, 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, claims 6-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-5 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Subject Matter Distinguishable From Prior Art
The cited prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to expressly teach or suggest the features found in independent claim 6.
O'Regan (US-20160092874-A1) teaches a method and system for conducting a pre-authorized financial transaction, in which a consumer provides a token identifying a pre-authorized financial transaction and a consumer alias to a merchant, the merchant or an acquirer of the merchant sends the pre-authorization token and the consumer alias to a security gateway, and the security gateway matches the alias with a stored alias to identify an electronic device of the consumer, transmits an authorization request to the consumer's electronic device requesting confirmation or denial, receives a confirmation message or a denial message in response to the authorization request, and, upon receiving a confirmation message, transmits payment credentials associated with a selected payment instrument of the consumer to the merchant or the acquirer of the merchant for use in completing the pre-authorized transaction.
Mann (US-20060122943-A1) teaches transaction processing using a user-selected alias and a user-selected personal identification entry (PIE) in conjunction with use of a transaction card (e.g., a credit card), where the alias is linked to the user's credit card number, and when the user enters into a transaction with a merchant, the account-holder submits his or her alias to the merchant, the merchant submits the alias to the card controller, the card controller processes the alias and responds to the merchant, the merchant queries the user for the PIE and receives it, then submits the PIE to the card controller, and the card controller processes the PIE and responds to the merchant, approving or denying the transaction. See Fig. 8.
Annan (US-20100106644-A1) teaches a method for making a payment transaction between two mobile devices, in which a transferor enters transfer information, the transferor's device generates and sends a transfer request, the server validates the transaction and sends a confirmation request to the transferor's device, the transferor's device sends confirmation to the server, the server transfers funds from transferor's account to an escrow account, the server sends a transfer notice to the recipient's device, the recipient's device generates and sends a receive request to the server, the server validates the receive request, the server transfers the funds from the escrow account to the recipient's account, and the server sends a completion notice to the transferor's device and the recipient's device, where the server's validation involves sending an OTP to a verification server.
Song (US-20080110982-A1) teaches a transaction process wherein a consumer's computer encrypts transaction details and embedded identification information into an encrypted transaction packet, and sends the encrypted transaction packet and account information to a money service business (MBS), which forwards it to a financial institution, which accesses and composes a key based on the consumer's account information, uses the key to decrypt the encrypted transaction packet, checks if the embedded identification information matches the stored record and if the transaction complies with regulations, and approves or rejects the transaction, see Figs. 4A-4C.
Paulsen (US-20070250441-A1) teaches transaction processing where the customer's information is passed from the customer to the merchant, then from the merchant to an AML module for verification and back to the merchant, then to a payment system including to a fraud prevention module within the system, then to an acquirer and an issuer and back to the payment system, which sends authorization to the merchant. See Figs. 9A, 9B, 12, 13.
Studnitzer (US-20170098216-A1) teaches various transaction processing scenarios and arrangements involving a customer, merchant, payment processor, and optionally a creditor (guarantor), including transmitting information and identifiers among the parties, matching transaction data and identifiers by the payment processor, and sending confirmation messages among the parties, see e.g., Figs. 4-6 and 9.
Lanc (US-20080103972-A1) teaches a trusted authentication and payment environment for performing transactions without revealing the user's financial/personal details to the other party but with secure authentication and providing the other party with reassurance that the transaction will be completed, including authentication of both merchant and consumer using for each a matching process, consumer validation of merchant identity, merchant validation of consumer identity, and validation of consumer payment by merchant.
Hammad (US-20110022517-A1) teaches a method for expediting the authorization of an electronic payment transaction by relying on a previous authentication decision made by a first node in the authorization network as a proxy for the authorization decision to be made at a different node, where the previous decision may have been made based on a different payment device or different user inputs.
Sukhija (US-20210233041-A1) teaches various transaction processing scenarios and arrangements involving a user device, guarantor device, merchant system, payment gateway system, acquirer system, transaction processing system, issuer system 1, and issuer system 2, including routing various transaction information among the parties, and various approvals/declines and notifications, see e.g., Figs. 12 and 13.
Pi Farias (US-20160350547-A1) teaches processing a transaction between a customer and a merchant, using customer and merchant identities, determining whether to approve/reject based on a transaction cryptogam, and notifying merchant and customer.
Mehrotra (US-20200402049-A1) teaches a token/alert service system in which a server receives from a merchant a transaction message for a transaction associated with a consumer payment card, the server determines that the message is an authorization request message and extracts the primary account number from the message, transmits to the consumer a transaction alert message requesting the consumer to respond by approving or rejecting the transaction, and, upon receiving an approval response from the consumer, transmits a token request message to a card issuer of the payment card, generates a token, transmits the token to the merchant, and receives from the merchant a second authorization request message using the token.
Voltz (US-20130226813-A1) teaches a system for performing cyberspace transactions where the two parties to a transaction register their identity attributes under a Cyberspace Identification Trust Authority (CITA) system, each party is assigned a unique, encrypted and digitally signed identity token, and when the consuming party seeks payment for cyberspace services, the providing party submits their identity token to the consuming party, the consuming party creates a request token containing both the consumer's and the provider's identity tokens and the transaction related information, and forwards it to the CITA system, the CITA system validates the identity tokens and creates a payment confirmation token by processing the payment request, and the confirmation token is encrypted and digitally signed and returned to the consumer, and then forwarded to the provider to complete the transaction without either party openly exchanging personal identity attributes.
However, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest all of the features in independent claim 6 and more specifically the limitations of: transmitting, from a third computer system to a second computer system, a second passcode; receiving, at the third computer system from a first computer system, a first passcode in response to transmitting the second passcode; and receiving, at the third computer system from the first computer system, a first financial instrument number, as claimed together with the other limitations in the combination of independent claim 6.
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 6-13 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.
Claims 6-13 are directed to a method, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method for processing a transaction. For claim 6, the limitations (indicated below in bold) of:
transmitting, from a third computer system to a second computer system, a second passcode;
receiving, at the third computer system from a first computer system, a first passcode in response to transmitting the second passcode;
receiving, at the third computer system from the first computer system, a first financial instrument number;
receiving, at the third computer system from a fourth computer system, a second financial instrument number and a description of a transaction;
transmitting, from the third computer system to the first computer system, the description of the transaction when the first passcode corresponds to the second passcode and the first financial instrument number matches the second financial instrument number;
receiving, at the third computer system from the first computer system, a message in response to transmitting the description of the transaction; and
transmitting, from the third computer system to the fourth computer system, an instruction corresponding to the message.
as drafted, constitute a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "certain methods of organizing human activity," specifically, "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce, including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks, and "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.A.,B. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 6 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A - Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 6 recites the additional elements of a first computer system, a second computer system, a third computer system, and a fourth computer system, that implement the abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and they are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computer elements performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, even in combination these 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. (Step 2A - prong 2: NO. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a first computer system, a second computer system, a third computer system, and a fourth computer system, to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer elements cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such, claim 6 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.)
Dependent claims 7-13 are similarly rejected because they further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 6 as discussed above, and/or do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept such as would render the claims eligible, whether each is considered individually or as an ordered combination.
As for further defining/narrowing the abstract idea:
Claim 7 merely describes in which the first financial instrument number is associated with at least one of cash, virtual currency, a virtual security, a virtual instrument, a credit card, a debit card, an ATM card, a prepaid card, a stored value card, a gift card, a check, a monetary instrument, a wire transfer, an ACH transfer, a letter of credit, a note, a security, a commercial paper, a commodity, precious metal, gold, silver, or a combination thereof.
Claim 8 merely describes in which the second financial instrument number is associated with at least one of cash, virtual currency, a virtual security, a virtual instrument, a credit card, a debit card, an ATM card, a prepaid card, a stored value card, a gift card, a check, a monetary instrument, a wire transfer, an ACH transfer, a letter of credit, a note, a security, a commercial paper, a commodity, precious metal, gold, silver, or a combination thereof.
Claim 9 merely describes in which … associated with an individual, an organization, or a combination thereof.
Claim 10 merely describes in which … associated with a financial institution.
Claim 12 merely describes in which … associated with at least one of a merchant, a financial institution, or a combination thereof.
Claim 13 merely describes transmitting … the first financial instrument number when the message indicates the transaction has been rejected.
As for additional elements:
Claim 9 recites “the first computer system comprises a device interface …." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 10 recites “the second computer system comprises a device interface ….” This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 11 recites "in which the third computer system comprises a device interface connected to a network of computer systems." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 12 recites “in which the fourth computer system comprises a device interface … .” This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 13 recites “… from the third computer system to a plurality of computer systems … .” This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 7 and 8 do not recite any additional elements, and accordingly, for the reasons provided above with respect to the independent claims, are not patent eligible.
Therefore, dependent claims 7-13 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, as set forth in the accompanying Notice of References Cited (PTO-892), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Description of the cited prior art is provided above ("Subject Matter Distinguishable From Prior Art").
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS W PINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-4131. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DWP/
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626