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 submission filed on 05/13/26 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending.
In the Amendment filed on 05/13/26, claim 6 was amended, and no claims were cancelled or added. Claims 1-5 are withdrawn pursuant to the Restriction Requirement (see below).
Claims 6-13 are rejected.
Election/Restriction
Affirmation of the election by Applicant in response to the Restriction Requirement was required in reply to the previous Office action, but no affirmation was found in Applicant's Response. Therefore, the requirement for affirmation of the election remains outstanding, and affirmation of the election must be made by Applicant in replying to this Office action. For Applicant's reference, the restriction requirement is set forth again below.
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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Office responds to Applicant’s arguments below. The Office's responses below are grouped according to the headings used in Applicant's Response. In the discussion below, page numbers refer to Applicant’s Response, unless otherwise indicated.
I. Step 2A, Prong One: The Claims Do Not Recite A Judicial Exception (p. 7)
No substantive argument is provided in this section.
A. The Claims Recite Machine-Specific Operations, Not Mental Processes (pp. 7-8)
Note the discussion in this section pertains to the content of claim 6 as Applicant has set it forth on p. 8.
The claims were not rejected as mental processes. Accordingly, this part of the argument is not relevant.
To the extent that the claims recite "Machine-Specific" operations (p. 7) or "are inherently technological" (p. 8), this subject matter merely constitutes generic computer elements used as a tool in their ordinary capacities to apply the judicial exception (e.g., computer systems, device interface).
As for Applicant's assertion that the recited operations "require automated computer processing at speeds and scales impossible for human performance" (p. 8), again: (1) this subject matter merely constitutes generic computer elements used as a tool in their ordinary capacities to apply the judicial exception (e.g., computer systems, device interface); (2) the claims were not rejected as mental processes; and (3) the claims do not recite any subject matter pertaining to "speeds and scales."
As for Applicant's invocation of Enfish (p. 8), the instant claimed subject matter is not similar or analogous to that of Enfish, and provides no improvement in computer functionality/other technology.
As for Applicant's assertion of improvement in "the technology of electronic transaction processing" (p. 9), again, the Office finds no improvement in computer functionality/other technology. The recited "specific operations, data flows and inter-system coordination" are all part of the abstract idea except for the generic computer elements that carry out the abstract idea/transaction processing.
It is further noted, regarding the "multi-system verification architecture," that the arrangement of multiple generic computers sending and receiving information among themselves does not represent any improvement in the generic computers/other technology. Any such alleged improvement would be in the abstract idea, e.g., in the arrangement of multiple parties.
Further, it is noted that the newly added claim limitations of "to cause the first computer system to display the description of the transaction via a device interface and to prompt input of an accept response or a reject response" and "to cause the fourth computer system to complete the transaction when the message comprises the accept response and to stop the transaction when the message comprises the reject response" are recited at a high level of generality and are not described (e.g., no technical details are provided as to how the displaying, completing, or stopping is caused), and merely constitute generic computer elements used as a tool in their ordinary capacities to apply the judicial exception.1
Application of USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (p. 9)
Applicant alleges the instant claims are analogous to Examples 39 and 40 of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The Office respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Example 39, the subject matter of Applicant's claims is not similar or analogous to Example 39.2 The subject matter noted here by Applicant:
a multi-system architecture where a third computer system acts as a verification intermediary, performing dual authentication (passcode correspondence and financial instrument number matching) before conditionally routing transaction information. … the particular sequence of inter-system communications, the dual verification mechanism, and the conditional routing logic (p. 9)
is merely the abstract idea, except for the recited "computer" systems, which are merely generic computer elements.
Regarding Example 40, the subject matter of Applicant's claims as a whole is not similar or analogous to Example 40. Applicant argues the analogy to Example 40 based on the following subject matter:
machine-specific operations performed by identified computer systems. The amendments add "comparing, by the third computer system, the first passcode to the second passcode" and "comparing, by the third computer system, the first financial instrument number to the second financial instrument number," which are concrete technological operations analogous to the specific encryption operations3 in Example 40. (p. 9)
Although eligible claim 1 of Example 40 recites a "comparing" step, it was also found to include an "improvement in collecting data traffic." In contrast, the remainder of Applicant's claim 6 beyond the comparing steps merely constitute an abstract idea (e.g., performing verification in order to determine whether to accept or reject a transaction), applied using generic computer elements, as explained above.
B. The Claims Do Not Recite Abstract Business Methods (pp. 9-10)
The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant's assertion that the claims do not recite abstract business methods.
Claim 6 on its face (e.g., exchanging and verifying customer identification and transaction data, accepting or rejecting a transaction based upon verification and customer input) recites a business method, namely, performing verification in order to determine whether to accept or reject a transaction, which is carried out by generic computer elements.
As per Applicant's specification, independent claim 6 appears to solve the problems of (1) the legal prohibition on financial institutions regarding disclosure of private identification information (e.g., 0042-0043, 00518-00526) and (2) the need for an objective third party to implement an identity verification system to ensure fairness among different parties (e.g., 00542). Claim 6 solves these problems by using an identity code (which hides the actual identification information) and a central authority ("central computer system," 00542) (recited third computer system) to perform verification among the various parties involved in a processing a financial transaction (namely, financial institution (bank) (recited second computer system), merchant (recited fourth computer system), and customer (recited first computer system)). These problems are business/commercial/legal, not technological. Likewise, the solution is not technological and has nothing to do with improving computer functioning or other technology.
The "architecture with specific roles" (p. 10) represents abstract idea content, implemented using generic computer elements (computer systems, device interface), as explained above.
Again, the subject matter argued here:
passcode exchange between identified computer systems, dual verification through programmatic comparison operations, conditional routing based on matching results, real-time4 consumer authentication through device interfaces, and automated instruction generation based on consumer responses (p. 10)
is merely abstract idea content, implemented using generic computer elements (computer systems, device interface), as explained above.
II. Step 2A, Prong Two: The Claims Integrate Any Alleged Exception Into a Practical Application (p. 10)
No substantive argument is provided in this section.
A. The Claims Recite a Specific Technological Implementation (pp. 10-11)
Applicant argues:
The claims recite a specific multi-system architecture for fraud prevention that provides a technical solution to the technical problem of verifying transaction authenticity in real-time without exposing sensitive financial information to merchants. The third computer system acts as a trusted intermediary that: (1) obtains authentication credentials from the financial institution (second computer system), (2) verifies the consumer's identity through passcode and financial instrument number matching, (3) conditionally routes transaction details to the consumer for approval, and (4) provides authorization instructions to the merchant system based on the consumer's response.
This architecture solves the technical problem of how to enable real-time consumer authentication in electronic transactions while maintaining data security and privacy. The solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology because it requires real-time communication between multiple computer systems, automated verification operations, and conditional routing based on programmatic logic.
In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit held claims patent-eligible where they addressed "a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks" and provided a solution "necessarily rooted in computer technology." The court emphasized that the claims were not simply using generic computer components to perform abstract functions, but rather provided a technological solution to a technological problem.
The present claims similarly address a problem specific to electronic transaction systems: how to verify transaction authenticity in real-time while protecting sensitive financial data. The solution-a multi-system verification architecture with conditional routing and automated response processing-is necessarily rooted in computer network technology. (pp. 10-11; emphasis added)
Applicant's account of independent claim 6 (first paragraph quoted above) matches the Office's account provided above: claim 6 recites performing verification in order to determine whether to accept or reject a transaction, which is carried out by generic computer elements, and solves the problems of (1) the legal prohibition on financial institutions regarding disclosure of private identification information and (2) the need for an objective third party to implement an identity verification system to ensure fairness among different parties, by using an identity code (which hides the actual identification information) and a central authority to perform verification among the various parties involved in a processing a financial transaction, these problems and solution not being technological.
As for "real-time":
- although the specification mentions real-time, the specification does not make it clear that is the problem the claimed invention is intended to resolve
- in any event, the claimed subject matter does not recite or pertain to "real-time"
- in any event, the fact that operations are performed in real-time would be a part of an abstract idea, not additional elements; the mere recitation of "real-time" as such, or the mere fact that recited operations were performed in real time, would not reflect an improvement in technology
Note the only "computer technology" the claim is rooted in is generic computer elements ("computer systems"; "device interface"), which merely apply the abstract idea. Even if computer automation provides for real-time performance, this does not amount to an improvement in computer functioning/other technology, but merely the use of generic computer elements to automate/apply the abstract idea.
As for Applicant's invocation of DDR: the claims bear no similarity or analogy to DDR. The recited transaction processing (exchanging and verifying customer identification and transaction data, accepting or rejecting a transaction based upon verification and customer input) is not necessarily rooted in and does not arise from computers or the Internet but exists conceptually independently thereof and prior thereto.
Applicant's language, namely, "a problem specific to electronic transaction systems: how to verify transaction authenticity in real-time while protecting sensitive financial data," indicates merely that the claims are specific to an abstract idea that is applied using generic computer elements.
B. The Claims Improve Computer Functionality (pp. 11-12)
None of the items that Applicant lists under this heading improves computer functionality. For example, none of the items reflects that any change has been made to a generic computer. Rather, the items merely use generic computers in their ordinary capacities as a tool to apply a process that exists independently of computers/the Internet. This point is reflected by the fact that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are not described. No technical detail is recited as to how the computer elements perform the recited operations.
Applicant's invocation of "Example 43 [sic]5 (Graphical User Interface for Relocating Obscured Textual Information") of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is not persuasive.
The subject matter of Applicant's claims is not similar or analogous to Example 23 ("Graphical User Interface for Relocating Obscured Textual Information"). For example, it is not clear how or in what sense the instant claims, which are directed to secure transaction processing, as described above, resemble a graphical user interface for relocating obscured textual information. Applicant does not provide any explanation of how or in what sense the subject matter here argued resembles Example 23. The alleged improvements cited by Applicant (p. 12) are either putative improvements to the abstract idea, or incidental benefits consequent thereto, e.g., if the number of fraudulent transactions is reduced, then the various computer processing that would normally occur in response to fraudulent transactions (e.g., reversing the transactions, recording data and sending notifications regarding the fraudulent transactions, etc.) would be reduced, amounting to "reduced computational overhead," albeit without any change or improvement to computer functioning or other technology.
C. The Claims Apply Specific Rules and Impose Meaningful Limits (pp. 12-13)
The "conditional logic" (e.g., if-then statements) argued here by Applicant constitute part of the abstract idea. To the extent they are carried out by recited computer elements, they represent the abstract idea applied using generic computer elements.
Applicant's invocation of Example 39 of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is not persuasive. Note Example 39 pertains to "Method for Training a Neural Network for Facial Detection" and does not include recitations of "if authentication succeeds, then transmit encrypted data." It appears Applicant may have made a typographical error in invoking Example 39, but if so it is not clear to which Example Applicant intends to refer.
III. Step 2B: The Claims Recite Significantly More (pp. 13-14)
No substantive argument is provided in this section.
A. The Claimed Elements Are Not Well-Understood, Routine, or Conventional (pp. 14-15)
The claims were/are not rejected as well-understood, routine, and conventional. The rejection did/does not rely on Berkheimer. Accordingly, Applicant's argument is not pertinent.
Rather, the claims were rejected under step 2B because the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements, and mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer elements cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). See MPEP 2106.05 I.A.:
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
B. The Ordered Combination Provides an Inventive Concept (pp. 15-16)
The "specific sequence of operations" set forth here by Applicant amounts merely to the abstract idea, applied using generic computer elements.
Applicant asserts the combination is "more than the sum of its parts" but Applicant provides no explanation as to how or in what sense the combination is more than the sum of the individual claim limitations (p. 16). Accordingly, the assertion is conclusory and not persuasive.
Applicant asserts:
The sequence enables real-time fraud prevention through distributed verification while maintaining data security-a result that cannot be achieved by the individual elements alone.(p. 16)
It is not clear what Applicant means by "a result that cannot be achieved by the individual elements alone." If Applicant means that the result cannot be achieved by the sum of its individual elements, then this is to say that the claimed invention is inoperable. If Applicant means that the result cannot be achieved by a single individual element, this assertion has no persuasive weight, because it is definitional that "fraud prevention through distributed verification" cannot be achieved by a single element. In either case, the assertion is not persuasive that the claimed combination is "more than the sum of its parts."
IV. The Amendments Clarify the Technological Nature of the Invention (pp. 16-17)
The subject matter of the amendments has already been addressed above. As indicated, the comparing is part of the abstract idea, performed by (i.e., applied using) a generic computer element, and the "to cause" statements are again merely part of the abstract idea, applied using generic computer elements.6
V. The Examiner's Acknowledgment of Novelty Supports Eligibility (p. 17)
This argument has been addressed in respect of step 2B above. As explained, the claims were/are not rejected as being well-understood, routine and conventional.
As also explained above, independent claim 6 constitutes an abstract idea applied using generic computer elements. The computer elements comprise "computer systems" and a "device interface." These are recited at a high level of generality and not described. They are used in their ordinary capacities as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
As such, the claim presents no improvement in computer functioning/technology; any putative improvement would be an putative improvement in the abstract idea.
Further, as such, the relationship between the additional elements and the abstract idea is that of "apply it," and thus no inventive concept (significantly more) is seen in the combination of judicial exception and additional elements.
VI. Conclusion on § 101 Rejection (pp. 17-18)
No substantive argument is provided in this section.
VII. Dependent Claims 7-13 (pp. 18-19)
The subject matter of the dependent claims does not render them eligible.
As for claims 7-8, the specifying of the types of financial instruments is merely a specifying of the abstract idea.
As for claims 9-12, the further recitation that each of the computer systems comprises a device interface amounts merely to a further generic computer element, again recited at a high level of generality, not described, and used as a tool in its ordinary capacity, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element.
As for claim 13, this claim recites transmitting a financial instrument number when the transaction has been rejected. As such, this claim constitutes merely additional content of the abstract idea (transmitting data under a certain condition), applied using generic computer elements (namely, the third computer system, which performs the transmitting, and the other computer systems, to which the data is transmitted). While notifying other parties of suspected fraud may be advantageous, this transmission of data under a condition from one computer to other computers is not an improvement in computer functioning/other technology.
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 (or, more specifically, performing verification in order to determine whether to accept or reject 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;
comparing, by the third computer system, the first passcode to the second passcode to determine correspondence;
comparing, by the third computer system, the first financial instrument number to the second financial instrument number to determine a match;
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 to cause the first computer system to display the description of the transaction via a device interface and to prompt input of an accept response or a reject response;;
receiving, at the third computer system from the first computer system, a message comprising the accept response or the reject response 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 to cause the fourth computer system to complete the transaction when the message comprises the accept response and to stop the transaction when the message comprises the reject response.
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, a fourth computer system, and a device interface, 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, a fourth computer system, and a device interface, 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. Among the cited prior art:
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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.
/DOUGLAS W PINSKY/
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
1 Note the "to cause" statements are also intended use and as such are not necessarily entitled to full patentable weight.
2 Note Example 39 pertains to a "Method for Training a Neural Network for Facial Detection." It is not clear how or in what sense the instant claims ("secure transaction processing," as described above) are "[l]ike example 39." Applicant does not provide any explanation of how or in what sense the subject matter here argued resembles Example 39.
3 Note Example 40 does not include encryption operations. It is not clear what Applicant is referring to here. Also, Applicant's claims do not include encryption operations and are not analogous to encryption operations, so again Applicant's argument is not clear.
4 Note the claims do not recite "real-time."
5 Note Example 43 pertains to "Treating Kidney Disease." It appears Applicant has made a typographical error and intended to refer to Example 23, which pertains to "Graphical User Interface for Relocating Obscured Textual Information."
6 As noted above, the "to cause" statements are also intended use and as such are not necessarily entitled to full patentable weight.
Prosecution Insights