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 .
Status of Claims
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL.
• The Examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by Examiner Raven Yono.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement(s) filed on 11/01/2024 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference character S204 of FIG. 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to a method (claim 1) and an apparatus (claim 11). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1 and 11 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1 and 11 recite, in part, a method and an apparatus of organizing human activity. Using the limitations in claim 1 to illustrate, the claim recites a method comprising: receiving a first clearing file comprising data for a plurality of transactions; determining an authorizing entity associated with one or more transactions from the first clearing file; transmitting, to the authorizing entity, a second clearing file including data for the one or more transactions; determining that the one or more transactions include one or more anomaly transactions; and initiating one or more transaction reversals with respect to the one or more anomaly transactions. The Specification at [0002] states: “The clearing phase is often operational, delayed, and outdated which presents integrity and logical loopholes. Uncertainty delays the clearing, which requires additional workload form the issuers and takes away from user experience. A tool to increase efficiency in the clearing process is needed.”
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for detecting anomalies in a batch of transactions in a clearing file and processing reversal transactions anomalous transactions, which is a commercial and legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors. The mere nominal recitation of a network processing computer, transport computer, and authorizing entity computer do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of a processing network computer comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer readable media comprising code executable by the one or more processors to perform a method; a transport computer; an authorizing entity computer operated by the authorizing entity are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving a clearing file of a plurality of transactions, dete4rmining an authorizing entity, transmitting a second file including transactions, determining the transactions include anomaly transactions, and initiating reversals of the anomaly transactions) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do 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 in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-4, 9-10, 12-13, 17-19 simply help to define the abstract idea. Dependent claims 5-8, 14-16, and 20 simply further describes the technological environment. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8060442 B1 (“Hecht”) in view of US 20080255940 A1 (“Perreault”).
Regarding claim 1, Hecht discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a processing network computer from a transport computer, a first clearing file comprising data for a plurality of transactions (Universal work station 301 including a Duplication Detection module, see at least col. 6, lines 26-46 and FIG. 3, UWS 301 and Duplicate Detection module 304 of UWS 301. MICR data may be formatted into one or more inquiry files. The captured MICR data is routed to the check processing module, where it is then formatted into inquiry files and enters the payment stream being directed to the duplicate detection module. See at least col. 8, line 51 to col. 9, line 5. Check processing module may include a processor, see at least col. 8, lines 20-28. An inquiry file generally contains at least item numbers and debits. See at least col. 7, line 53 to col. 8, line 19, and inquiry files are processed in a clearing process, see at least col. 12, lines 17-60 and col. 13, lines 37-48. The Examiner interprets the UWS as the processing network computer. And, the Examiner interprets the check processing module as a transport computer.);
determining, by the processing network computer, that the one or more transactions include one or more anomaly transactions (Analyzing transactions in the inquiry file to detect duplicate transactions, see at least col. 9, lines 43-57.); and
initiating, by the processing network computer, one or more transaction reversals with respect to the one or more anomaly transactions (all confirmed duplicate items are next routed to a Return Item/Fraud review module. These items are reviewed for fraud before being sent to adjustments. All duplicate debits, such as returns and memo posts, need to be reversed. Items on the customer's account may have been routed to Return Items as a result of an overdraft caused by payment of the duplicate item. Return Item fees need to be reversed for these items and the items resubmitted for payment. See at least col. 11, lines 25-48.).
While Hecht discloses a processing network computer, Hecht does not expressly disclose determining, by the processing network computer, an authorizing entity associated with one or more transactions from the first clearing file; transmitting, by the processing network computer to an authorizing entity computer operated by the authorizing entity, a second clearing file including data for the one or more transactions.
However, Perreault discloses determining, by the processing network computer, an authorizing entity associated with one or more transactions from the first clearing file; transmitting, by the processing network computer to an authorizing entity computer operated by the authorizing entity, a second clearing file including data for the one or more transactions (The payment processing network transaction clearing computer receiving batch of payment transactions. See at least [0057]. The payment processing network transaction clearing computer then combines each payment transaction in a batch with other transactions bound for the same issuer, and transmits the resulting batch of transactions to the outbound clearing computer. The outbound clearing computer sends the batch of transactions, including the payment transactions, to the issuer computer for the issuer in question. See at least [0058]. Batch transaction files are processed for clearing, see at least [0017].).
From the teaching of Perreault, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the processing network computer of Hecht to determine authorizing entity associated with one or more transactions from the first clearing file, as taught by Perreault, and to modify the processing network computer of Hecht to transmit to an authorizing entity computer a second clearing file including data for the one or more transactions, as taught by Perrault, in order to improve the process of confirming validity and integrity of payment transactions (see Perreault at least at [0058]). Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hecht and Perreault discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Hecht further discloses initiating a transaction reversal in the one or more transaction reversals comprises: determining, by the processing network computer, data for an anomaly transaction in the one or more anomaly transactions (Analyzing transactions in the inquiry file to detect duplicate transactions, see at least col. 9, lines 43-57),
wherein the data for the anomaly transaction comprises an account number, a unique transaction identifier, an authorization identifier, and a transaction value (Transaction data for a transaction includes an account number, a check number, a bank name, and a check amount. See at least col. 4, lines 22-34 and FIG. 1. During duplicate detection, comparing the transaction data in the received inquiry file with the transaction data stored in the database. See at least col. 6, lines 3-25. See also col. 7, lines 12-25 and see also col. 9, lines 43-57.);
generating, by the processing network computer, a reversal transaction message comprising a reversal transaction indicator in a transaction code data field, the account number, the unique transaction identifier, the authorization identifier, and the transaction value (Removing false positives and leaving suspect duplicate transactions in a file, see at least col. 10, lines 6-47. Transaction data for a transaction includes an account number, a check number, a bank name, and a check amount. Transaction information includes multiple fields (e.g., check number; fractional routing area; payee; date; convenience amount field; legal amount area; signature; bank name, address and, usually, logo; and accountholder information; amount field, “on-us” field, transit field, external processing field, auxiliary field, etc. See at least col. 4, lines 22-34 and FIG. 1. The Examiner interprets any of these fields, such as for example the field of “amount,” which may indicate a duplicate if there is a matching amount stored in the database, as a reversal transaction indicator.); and
transmitting, by the processing network computer, the reversal transaction message (Transmitting suspect duplicate transactions to a module, see at least col. 10, lines 48-63 and see also col. 11, lines 4-27.).
While Hecht discloses transmitting to a module, Hecht does not expressly disclose transmitting to the authorizing entity computer.
However, Perreault discloses transmitting to the authorizing entity computer (Transmitting to the issuer computer. See at least [0058].).
From the teaching of Perreault, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transmitting of Hecht to transmit to the authorizing entity computer, as taught by Perrault, in order to improve the process of confirming validity and integrity of payment transactions (see Perreault at least at [0058]). Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hecht and Perreault discloses the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and Hecht further discloses the data for the plurality of transactions comprises the data for the anomaly transaction (Transaction data for a transaction includes an account number, a check number, a bank name, and a check amount. See at least col. 4, lines 22-34 and FIG. 1. During duplicate detection, comparing the transaction data in the received inquiry file with the transaction data stored in the database. See at least col. 6, lines 3-25. See also col. 7, lines 12-25 and see also col. 9, lines 43-57).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hecht and Perreault discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Hecht further discloses the one or more anomaly transactions are duplicate transactions determined by the processing network computer checking a database for anomaly transactions (Transaction data for a transaction includes an account number, a check number, a bank name, and a check amount. See at least col. 4, lines 22-34 and FIG. 1. During duplicate detection, comparing the transaction data in the received inquiry file with the transaction data stored in the database. See at least col. 6, lines 3-25. See also col. 7, lines 12-25 and see also col. 9, lines 43-57.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hecht and Perreault discloses the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Hecht further discloses the processing network computer comprises the database (During duplicate detection, comparing the transaction data in the received inquiry file with the transaction data stored in the database. See at least col. 6, lines 3-25. DQ database part of UWS, see at least col. 6, lines 3-25 and FIG. 3, DQ database as a component of UWS.), and
wherein the database stores data related to a plurality of transactions (A DQ database wherein the MICR data of each item is stored. See at least col. 6, lines 3-25. ),
wherein each transaction is associated with an authorization identifier (Transaction data for a transaction includes an account number, a check number, a bank name, and a check amount. Transaction information includes multiple fields (e.g., check number; fractional routing area; payee; date; convenience amount field; legal amount area; signature; bank name, address and, usually, logo; and accountholder information; amount field, “on-us” field, transit field, external processing field, auxiliary field, etc. See at least col. 4, lines 22-34 and FIG. 1.).
While Hecht discloses transactions, Hecht does not expressly disclose the transactions are authorization request messages.
However, Perreault discloses the transactions are authorization request messages (authorization requests and requests to settle purchase transactions to an acquirer, see at least [0016]-[0017].).
From the teaching of Perreault, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transactions of Hecht to be authorization request messages, as taught by Perrault, in order to improve the process of confirming validity and integrity of payment transactions (see Perreault at least at [0058]). Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hecht and Perreault discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Hecht further discloses facilitating, by the processing network computer, a settlement process between the authorizing entity computer and the transport computer, the settlement process involving transaction values associated with at least the one or more transactions (MICR data may be formatted into one or more inquiry files. The captured MICR data is routed to the check processing module, where it is then formatted into inquiry files and enters the payment stream being directed to the duplicate detection module. See at least col. 8, line 51 to col. 9, line 5. Check processing module may include a processor, see at least col. 8, lines 20-28. An inquiry file generally contains at least item numbers and debits. See at least col. 7, line 53 to col. 8, line 19, and inquiry files are processed in a clearing process, see at least col. 12, lines 17-60 and col. 13, lines 37-48. The MICR data for each item in an inquiry file contains at least the check no. and the debit amount. See at least col. 9, lines 43-57.).
Claim 11 has similar limitations found in claim 1 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale. And, Hecht discloses a processing network computer comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer readable media comprising code executable by the one or more processors to perform a method (See at least col. 14, line 34 to col. 15, line 23.).
Claim 12 has similar limitations found in claim 10 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hecht and Perreault disclose the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above, and Hecht further discloses the data for the plurality of transactions comprises unique transaction identifiers, account identifiers, authorization identifiers, and transaction values for the plurality of transactions (Transaction data for a transaction includes an account number, a check number, a bank name, and a check amount. Transaction information includes multiple fields (e.g., check number; fractional routing area; payee; date; convenience amount field; legal amount area; signature; bank name, address and, usually, logo; and accountholder information; amount field, “on-us” field, transit field, external processing field, auxiliary field, etc. See at least col. 4, lines 22-34 and FIG. 1.).
Claim 19 has similar limitations found in claim 9 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 20 has similar limitations found in claim 8 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht in view of Perreault, and in further view of US 20240289809 A1 (“Srivastava”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hecht and Perreault discloses the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and while Hecht discloses a reversal transaction message (see Hecht at least col. 10, lines 48-63 and see also col. 11, lines 4-27), Hecht does not expressly disclose prior to transmitting the message to the authorizing entity computer, transmitting, by the processing network computer to the transport computer, the message; and receiving, by the processing network computer from the transport computer, the message.
However, Srivastava discloses prior to transmitting the message to the authorizing entity computer, transmitting, by the processing network computer to the transport computer, the message; and receiving, by the processing network computer from the transport computer, the message (Transaction exchange platform may send (e.g., transmit) the completed transaction objects to validation platform. If validation platform determines that the format is invalid, transaction object may be returned to transaction exchange platform. Upload the transaction file to a portal associated with a clearinghouse. By uploading the file to the portal, validation platform may initiate the clearing of the plurality of transactions contained in the transaction file. See at least [0231].).
From the teaching of Srivastava, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hecht to, prior to transmitting the message to the authorizing entity computer, transmit to the transport computer, the message, as taught by Srivastava, and to modify the processing network computer of Hecht to receive from the transport computer, the message, as taught by Srivastava, in order to improve detecting or preventing duplicate transactions and to provide more faster, more dynamic, and more robust processing and approval of transactions, and to improving the flexibility and reliability of transaction approval and processing systems, while offering robust record keeping for transaction audit purposes, and to provide support for legacy and ongoing operations, solving for new and changing requirements in today's environment, and adapting to future technologies (see Srivastava at least at [0006]-[0009]).
Claims 5-7 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht in view of Perreault, and in further view of US 20240370940 A1 (“Hill”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hecht and Perreault discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Hecht further discloses the one or more anomaly transactions are determined to have duplicate profiling scores exceeding a threshold (After false positives are removed, the suspects are evaluated against the threshold rule base. Evaluation against the threshold rules reveals whether an inquiry file contains more than a threshold number of suspects. In one embodiment, the threshold rules include at least the following rules for determining whether a file is a small case, containing a relatively small number of suspects, or a large case: Greater than or equal to 99% of the items in the file are suspects; Greater than or equal to 50 sequential items are suspects; and Greater than or equal to 100 items in the file are suspects. Any inquiry file that exceeds one of the thresholds may be determined to be a large case, meaning that the file contains a large number of suspects. The actions that may be taken with large case files are: mark all items in the file as duplicates; mark one or more ranges of items in the file as duplicates; and mark all suspects as duplicates. See at least col. 10, lines 26-43.), and
wherein the duplicate profiling scores are determined by a model (Analyzing MICR data to determine duplicate transactions, see at least col. 9, line 43 to col. 10, line 25.).
While Hecht discloses a model, Hecht does not expressly disclose an artificial intelligence model.
However, Hill discloses an artificial intelligence model (The reporting engine may include and/or may use one or more trained machine learning models (e.g., stored within the travel database). For example, the machine learning models may be trained using historical data stored within the travel database. The various machine learning models may include neural networks (e.g., convolutional neural networks, deep neural networks), Support Vector Machines (SVMs), Random Forests, or the like. See at least [0050].).
From the teaching of Hill, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the model of Hecht to be an artificial intelligence model, as taught by Hill, in order to reduce fraud and increase account security (see Hill at least at [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hecht, Perreault, and Hill discloses the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Hecht does not expressly disclose the processing network computer comprises the artificial intelligence model.
However, Hill discloses the processing network computer comprises the artificial intelligence model (The reporting engine may include and/or may use one or more trained machine learning models (e.g., stored within the travel database). For example, the machine learning models may be trained using historical data stored within the travel database. The various machine learning models may include neural networks (e.g., convolutional neural networks, deep neural networks), Support Vector Machines (SVMs), Random Forests, or the like. See at least [0050].).
From the teaching of Hill, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the processing network computer of Hecht to comprise an artificial intelligence model, as taught by Hill, in order to reduce fraud and increase account security (see Hill at least at [0021]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hecht, Perreault, and Hill discloses the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. Hecht does not expressly disclose the artificial intelligence model is a deep neural network.
However, Hill discloses the artificial intelligence model is a deep neural network (The reporting engine may include and/or may use one or more trained machine learning models (e.g., stored within the travel database). For example, the machine learning models may be trained using historical data stored within the travel database. The various machine learning models may include neural networks (e.g., convolutional neural networks, deep neural networks), Support Vector Machines (SVMs), Random Forests, or the like. See at least [0050].).
From the teaching of Hill, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the processing network computer of Hecht to comprise an artificial intelligence model that is a deep neural network, as taught by Hill, in order to reduce fraud and increase account security (see Hill at least at [0021]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hecht and Perreault discloses the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above, and Hecht further discloses the one or more computer readable media further comprise a model (Analyzing MICR data to determine duplicate transactions, see at least col. 9, line 43 to col. 10, line 25),
a container layer, an orchestration layer (Universal Work Station including various multiple modules to implement functionality, see at least col. 5, line 40 to col. 6, line 59, and FIG. 3 depicting Universal Work Station including the multiple modules as describes in col. 5, line 40 to col. 6, line 59.),
a database (DQ database, see at least col. 6, lines 3-25.), and
a message builder (Duplicate detection module transmits messages, see at least col. 12, line 61 to col. 13, line 7.), and
wherein the model is in the container layer (Universal Work Station including various multiple modules to implement functionality, see at least col. 5, line 40 to col. 6, line 59, and FIG. 3 depicting Universal Work Station including the multiple modules as describes in col. 5, line 40 to col. 6, line 59.).
While Hecht discloses a model, Hecht does not expressly disclose an artificial intelligence model.
However, Hill discloses the model is an artificial intelligence model (The reporting engine may include and/or may use one or more trained machine learning models (e.g., stored within the travel database). For example, the machine learning models may be trained using historical data stored within the travel database. The various machine learning models may include neural networks (e.g., convolutional neural networks, deep neural networks), Support Vector Machines (SVMs), Random Forests, or the like. See at least [0050].).
From the teaching of Hill, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the model of Hecht to be an artificial intelligence model, as taught by Hill, in order to reduce fraud and increase account security (see Hill at least at [0021]).
Claim 15 has similar limitations found in claim 5 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 16 has similar limitations found in claim 7 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hecht, Perreault, and Hill discloses the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, and Hecht further discloses building, using the message builder, one or more reversal transaction messages with respect to the one or more anomaly transactions (Transmitting suspect duplicate transactions to a module, see at least col. 10, lines 48-63 and see also col. 11, lines 4-27. Duplicate detection module transmits messages, see at least col. 12, line 61 to col. 13, line 7.),
wherein each reversal transaction message comprises a reversal transaction indicator in a transaction code data field, an account number, an authorization identifier, and a transaction value (Removing false positives and leaving suspect duplicate transactions in a file, see at least col. 10, lines 6-47. Transaction data for a transaction includes an account number, a check number, a bank name, and a check amount. Transaction information includes multiple fields (e.g., check number; fractional routing area; payee; date; convenience amount field; legal amount area; signature; bank name, address and, usually, logo; and accountholder information; amount field, “on-us” field, transit field, external processing field, auxiliary field, etc. See at least col. 4, lines 22-34 and FIG. 1. The Examiner interprets any of these fields, such as for example the field of “amount,” which may indicate a duplicate if there is a matching amount stored in the database, as a reversal transaction indicator.).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Hecht, Perreault, and Hill discloses the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above, and Hecht further discloses the initiating one or more transaction reversals comprises transmitting the one or more reversal transaction messages (Transmitting suspect duplicate transactions to a module, see at least col. 10, lines 48-63 and see also col. 11, lines 4-27).
While Hecht discloses transmitting to a module, Hecht does not expressly disclose transmitting to the authorizing entity computer.
However, Perreault discloses transmitting to the authorizing entity computer (Transmitting to the issuer computer. See at least [0058].).
From the teaching of Perreault, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transmitting of Hecht to transmit to the authorizing entity computer, as taught by Perrault, in order to improve the process of confirming validity and integrity of payment transactions (see Perreault at least at [0058]). Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130110724 A1 (“Edwards”) discloses in a method of determining if a check being presented for settlement is a duplicate, a request is received to convert a check made to a payee to funds. A query is performed on a check processing database to retrieve information about the check indicating whether a query has already been performed on the check processing database for the check when the check had been presented for settlement. In response to determining that a query for the check had previously been performed on the check processing database, an indication is provided.
US 20130013491 A1 (“Selway”) discloses reducing fraud by detecting duplicate financial transactions in a financial transaction processing system. In various embodiments, financial institutions can be alerted when a financial instrument such as a check is being tendered for deposit, wherein a previous deposit for that same instrument had previously been submitted at the same or a different financial institution. The system and method provide for detection of deposits of checks after remote deposit of the same check had been previously performed (for example by submitting a digital image of the check). Deposit of duplicate counterfeit paper checks issued to multiple parties can also be detected and mitigated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694