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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the application" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 2-21 are directed to obtaining funding source information, retrieving terms information, selecting a first financial service provider and causing transmission of the funding source information to the first financial service provider, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 9 (and similarly claims 2 and 16) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method comprising:
obtaining, by a computer system and from a point-of-sale (POS) device, funding source information of a funding source usable in a POS transaction;
retrieving, by the computer system, terms information from a plurality of remote servers associated with a plurality of financial service providers via a first communication channel;
selecting, by the computer system and from the plurality of financial service providers, a first financial service provider for processing the POS transaction based on the terms information and a set of criteria specified by a merchant associated with the POS device; and
causing, by the computer system, the POS device to transmit, using a protocol associated with the first financial service provider and via a second communication channel, the funding source information and transaction information related to the POS transaction to a first remote server from the plurality of remote servers and associated with the first financial service provider for processing the POS transaction.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer system”, “a point-of-sale (POS) device” and “a plurality of remote servers”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “computer system”, “point-of-sale (POS) device” and “plurality of remote servers” language, “selecting, … from the plurality of financial service providers, a first financial service provider for processing the POS transaction based on the terms information and a set of criteria specified by a merchant associated with the POS device” in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation and judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “obtaining… funding source information of a funding source usable in a POS transaction; retrieving, …terms information … associated with a plurality of financial service providers via a first communication channel; selecting, … from the plurality of financial service providers, a first financial service provider for processing the POS transaction based on the terms information and a set of criteria specified by a merchant associated with the POS device; and causing, … to transmit, using a protocol associated with the first financial service provider and via a second communication channel, the funding source information and transaction information related to the POS transaction … for processing the POS transaction” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recite six additional elements – “computer system”, “point-of-sale (POS) device”, “plurality of remote servers”, “one or more hardware processors” (claim 2), “a payment network” (claim 2) and “an EMV reader” (claim 11). The “computer system”, “point-of-sale (POS) device”, “plurality of remote servers”, “one or more hardware processors”, “payment network” and “EMV reader” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the selecting and causing steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the receiving, obtaining and retrieving steps). Accordingly, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “computer system”, “point-of-sale (POS) device”, “plurality of remote servers”, “one or more hardware processors”, “payment network” and “EMV reader” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “computer system”, “point-of-sale (POS) device”, “plurality of remote servers”, “one or more hardware processors”, “payment network” and “EMV reader” are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0011067 A1 to Katzin et al. (“Katzin”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0207550 A1 to Eden et al. (“Eden”).
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, the claimed subject matter that is met by Katzin includes:
a system, comprising (Katzin: Abstract and Figs. 7-9):
a non-transitory memory storing instructions (Katzin: ¶ 0119); and
one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to execute the instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to (Katzin: ¶¶ 0092 and 0119):
receive, via a payment network, an indication of a point-of-sale (POS) transaction for processing by a POS device (Katzin: ¶¶ 0039-0040 “merchants such as the jewelry merchant, can choose an embedded solution for using various transaction services made available by the embedded application distribution capabilities 108 in the services store layer 105. In such embodiments, developers can offer software, code or portions thereof for download to merchant websites, point-of-sale devices, computers, PDAs, cell phones or smart phones that the merchant uses for accepting payments” and 0085 “process starts at step 910 in which a GAL gateway receives a transaction authorization request from one of the plurality of merchants/users”);
obtain funding source information associated with a funding source for the POS transaction via a communication link established between the POS device and a payment instrument (Katzin: ¶¶ 0051 “consumers can be issued various forms of payment accounts. The payment accounts can include credit, debit, ATM, online and personal computing device type payment accounts. The consumer can choose to use one of these payment accounts to initiate a payment or other financial transaction with a merchant in merchant layer 220”, 0055 and 0086 “GAL gateway can parse the transaction authorization request to extract, or otherwise parse, transaction service request data at step 920. The parsed transaction service request data can include identifiers and/or service calls, i.e. code segments, for establishing connections with the third-party service providers or for running an application provided by third party service provider”);
select, by the application and from the plurality of third-party financial service providers, a first third-party financial service provider for processing the POS transaction based on the terms information (Katzin: ¶¶ 0080 “selection and type of third-party services that the merchant selects can be based on a number of factors concerning the merchant. For example merchant may choose to subscribe to a particular fraud detection or dispute resolution service provider so as to make fraud and dispute resolution records received from the third-party service provider consistent across all payment networks” and 0086-0087 “The parsed transaction service request data can include identifiers and/or service calls, i.e. code segments, for establishing connections with the third-party service providers or for running an application provided by third party service provider”); and
cause the POS device to transmit, using a protocol used by the first third-party financial service provider and via a second communication channel, the funding source information and transaction information related to the POS transaction to a first third-party server associated with the first third-party financial service provider for processing the POS transaction (Katzin: ¶¶ 0087-0091 “the GAL gateway can access the abstraction layer database to determine one or more transaction service providers based on third-party service provider identifiers parsed from the transaction authorization request. The GAL gateway can then route the appropriate information according to the published API format to the third-party service providers ”).
Katzin fails to specifically teach 1.) subsequent to receiving the indication, retrieve, terms information from a plurality of third-party servers associated with a plurality of third-party financial service providers via a first communication channel and 2.) processing the POS transaction based on the terms information. The Examiner provides Eden to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Eden includes:
subsequent to receiving the indication, retrieve, terms information from a plurality of third-party servers associated with a plurality of third-party financial service providers via a first communication channel (Eden: ¶¶ 0090-0091 “when a consumer requests to purchase a product, the respective module identifies a list of the payment methods which are available thereto, for example as described herein, optionally including virtual financing service providers. The module addressees each financing service provider to acquire payment terms for the specific transaction. Each one of the financing service providers performs an analysis and calculates accordingly payment terms… the matching module 107 of the system 100 or another module, referred to herein combination module, is set to match a plurality of financing provider--consumer--retailer combinations and to select and/or to prioritize accordingly one or more combinations”)
select, by the application and from the plurality of third-party financial service providers, a first third-party financial service provider for processing the POS transaction based on the terms information (Eden: ¶¶ 0046, 0057, 0084 and 0090-0091)
Katzin teaches a system and method for performing a transaction. Eden teaches a comparable system and method for performing a transaction that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Eden offers the embodiment of subsequent to receiving the indication, retrieve, terms information from a plurality of third-party servers associated with a plurality of third-party financial service providers via a first communication channel and processing the POS transaction based on the terms information. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the real-time retrieval of terms information as disclosed by Eden to the system and method for performing a transaction as taught by Katzin for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for performing a transaction. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
While the first and second communication channels are taught by combining Katzin and and Eden, the combination does not necessarily teach two ‘different’ communication channels. The Examiner provides Johnson to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Johnson includes:
retrieve, terms information from a plurality of third-party servers associated with a plurality of third-party financial service providers via a first communication channel (Johnson: column 13, line 42 through column 14, line 8 and Fig. 2 ‘see communication between Merchant 205 to Transaction Evaluator 230’)
cause the POS device to transmit, … via a second communication channel the funding source information and transaction information related to the POS transaction to a first third-party server associated with the first third-party financial service provider for processing the POS transaction (Johnson: column 13, lines 16-35 and Fig. 2 ‘ see communication between Merchant 205 to Acquirer(s) 250)
Katzin and Eden teaches a system and method for performing a transaction. Johnson teaches a comparable system and method for performing a transaction that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Johnson offers the embodiment of retrieving terms information via a first communication channel and cause transmitting via a second communication channel of the funding source information. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the different communication channels as disclosed by Johnson to the systems and methods for performing a transaction as taught by Katzin and Eden for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for performing a transaction. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claims 3 and 17, the claimed subject matter that is met by Katzin, Eden and Johnson includes:
wherein executing the instructions further causes the system to:
receive a second indication of a second POS transaction for processing by the POS device (Katzin: ¶¶ 0039-0040 and 0085);
select, for the second POS transaction and from the plurality of third-party financial service providers, a second third-party financial service provider for processing the second POS transaction based on the terms information (Katzin: ¶¶ 0080 and 0086-0087 and Eden: ¶¶ 0084 and 0090-0091); and
cause the POS device to transmit, using a second protocol used by the second third-party financial service provider and via the second communication channel, second transaction information related to the second POS transaction to a second third-party server associated with the second third-party financial service provider for processing the second POS transaction Katzin: ¶¶ 0087-0091 and Johnson: column 13, lines 16-35).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Katzin, Eden and Johnson are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 16, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 4 and 19, the claimed subject matter that is met by Katzin, Eden and Johnson includes:
wherein executing the instructions further causes the system to: compare different portions of the terms information corresponding to different third-party financial service providers in the plurality of third-party financial service providers, wherein selecting the first third-party financial service provider is further based on comparing the different portions of the terms information (Eden: ¶¶ 0090 and 0113).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Katzin, Eden and Johnson are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 16, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, the claimed subject matter that is met by Katzin, Eden and Johnson includes:
wherein selecting the first third-party financial service provider is further based on one or more criteria specified by a merchant associated with the POS device (Eden: ¶¶ 0046 and 0057).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Katzin, Eden and Johnson are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 6 and 20, the claimed subject matter that is met by Katzin, Eden and Johnson includes:
wherein executing the instructions further causes the system to: transmit an application to the POS device; and configure the application based on rules provided by a merchant associated with the POS device (Eden: ¶¶ 0057 and 0067).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Katzin, Eden and Johnson are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 16, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, the claimed subject matter that is met by Katzin, Eden and Johnson includes:
wherein selecting the first third-party financial service provider is further based on attributes associated with the POS transaction (Eden: ¶ 0091).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Katzin, Eden and Johnson are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 8, the claimed subject matter that is met by Katzin, Eden and Johnson includes:
wherein selecting the first third-party financial service provider is further based on attributes associated with the payment instrument (Eden: ¶¶ 0042 and 0112).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Katzin, Eden and Johnson are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, the claimed subject matter that is met by Katzin, Eden and Johnson includes:
wherein the funding source information is obtained from a payment instrument via a communication link (Katzin: ¶ 0051).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Katzin, Eden and Johnson are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, the claimed subject matter that is met by Katzin, Eden and Johnson includes:
wherein the funding source information is obtained via an EMV reader of the POS device (Katzin: ¶ 0051 and Fig. 7).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Katzin, Eden and Johnson are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 12 and 21, the claimed subject matter that is met by Katzin, Eden and Johnson includes:
providing, on the POS device, a graphical user interface that enables a user to provide the set of criteria associated with financial service provider selection (Eden: ¶¶ 0057, 0067, 0085 and 0114).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Katzin, Eden and Johnson are discussed in the rejection of claims 9 and 16, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 13 and 18, the claimed subject matter that is met by Katzin, Eden and Johnson includes:
wherein the selecting the first financial service provider for processing the POS transaction is further based on the funding source information (Eden: ¶¶ 0042 ad 0112).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Katzin, Eden and Johnson are discussed in the rejection of claims 9 and 16, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 14, the claimed subject matter that is met by Katzin, Eden and Johnson includes:
providing, to the plurality of remote servers, the transaction information; and requesting the plurality of financial service providers to offer bids on the POS transaction based on the transaction information (Eden: ¶ 0090).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Katzin, Eden and Johnson are discussed in the rejection of claim 9, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 15, the claimed subject matter that is met by Katzin, Eden and Johnson includes:
wherein the POS transaction is associated with a purchase conducted between a user and a merchant, and wherein the method further comprises: retrieving user personal data associated with the user from a user device via the communication link, wherein the selecting the first financial service provider is further based on the user data (Eden: ¶0042).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Katzin, Eden and Johnson are discussed in the rejection of claim 9, and are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0150266 A1 to Dickelman (“Dickelman”) teaches and discloses “Electronic transaction data sets are processed for a multitude of disparate transactions using a plurality of autonomous payment networks. A software-programmed computer circuit receives and processes electronic transaction data to identify a buyer using information provided in the transaction data, and uses the identification to access buyer profile information for selecting one of a plurality of networks. In this context, a buyer can be identified using one of a plurality of identification approaches (e.g., different account IDs), and such identification can be used for retrieving and using electronic profile data to select a payment network for the buyer, which may be completely independent from the identification. Payment data is accordingly configured so that the selected network can receive and process the data, such as by configuring the data into a network-specific format and/or communicating the data using network-specific protocols. The configured payment data is transmitted to the selected payment network, for use in effecting electronic payment for the transaction” (Dickelman: Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights