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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 were pending and were canceled by preliminary amendment. Claims 15-33 are new. Claims 15 and 29 are amended. Claim 30 is canceled. Claims 15-29 and 31-33 are pending.
Response to Arguments
All previous rejections are withdrawn in view of the new claims which have been amended. All arguments directed to the present claims are moot since they have not yet received any rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 15-29 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
15. A system for validating target account data, the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the stored instructions to:
generate a platform that enables payment initiation on an endpoint device;
access the platform that enables payment initiation;
receive, through the endpoint device, a first input associated with target account data;
receive, through the endpoint device, a second input associated with target account data;
upon receipt of the first input and the second input, enable selection of an activatable element;
in response to selection of the activatable element, transmit the first input and the second input to a server;
perform a lookup associated with the first input and the second input, to validate the first input and the second input, wherein the lookup is conducted in a national shared database repository storing aggregated target account data from a plurality of entities and accessible by a plurality of independent systems, wherein both the first input and the second input are validated against the aggregated target account data within the national shared database repository to validate the first input and the second input;
generate, using a machine learning algorithm, a transformed result based on a degree of correspondence, wherein the transformed result includes a single overall score representing a probability that the target account corresponds to an intended target account; and display, on the endpoint device prior to completion of the payment, the transformed result indicating that the target account corresponds to the intended target account.
The underlined portion of the claims represent certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices of mitigating risk, because the claims are directed to validating the recipient of a payment.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim adds the words "apply it", or the like, to the abstract idea. The claims include a system for performing the abstract idea including a processor, a platform, an activatable element, a server, a database and machine learning, all of which are generically recited such that they cannot be considered particular machines, effect a transformation (other than data), reflect an improvement in the computer or technology or apply the abstract idea in some other meaningful way. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the reasons cited above.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and in combination and as a whole, comprise the abstract idea and the words “apply it”, the like.
Claims 16-18 merely narrow the lookup process, claims 19-22, 24 and 25 narrow the result, and 23 and 26-28 merely narrow how the result is presented. Claims 29 and 31-33 are similarly rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 31-33 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims depend from canceled claim 30. Appropriate correction is required.
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 15ertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15, 18-22, 29, 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (20200327550) and further in view of Suermondt (2003/0018658) and applicant admitted prior art.
Yamane discloses:
A system for validating target account data, the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions:
at least one processor configured to execute the stored instructions (0004) to:
generate a platform that enables payment initiation on an endpoint device;
access a platform that enables payment initiation (0052, Referring to FIG. SA, after the payment solicitation 400/450 is received, an example user/graphical interface 500 may be used to submit a payment request to the service provider system 110, according to potential embodiments. Interface 500 may be presented by, for example, a client application 138 running on the user device 130, or a website of the service provider that is accessed via a browser running on the user device 130.);
receive, through the endpoint device, a first input associated with target account data (0052, Interface 500 allows the user to identify a destination account at 505 by entering a routing number and account number);
receive, through the endpoint device, a second input associated with target account data (0052, identify a name (and address or other data) of the intended beneficiary at 510);
upon receipt of the first input and the second input, enable selection of an activatable element (0054, Following selection of the next icon 525);
in response to selection of the activatable element, transmit the first input and the second input to a server (0004, account validation API, 0057, at 610, the service provider system 110 may transmit a validation request (via, e.g., an API call) to validate the account via the verification system 180.);
perform a lookup associated with the first input and the second input, to validate the first input and the second input (0055, The service provider system 110 (and/or the user device 130 in other potential implementations), once data on the payment request has been entered/received, validates the information. 0057, at 610, the service provider system 110 may transmit a validation request (via, e.g., an API call) to validate the account via the verification system 180. If step 610 occurs before the payee name has been entered by the user, the verification system 180 may be used to discover what account owner is associated with the account. For example, the verification system 180 may have account data 182 (in a ledger, database, etc.) with a list of account numbers and owners, and the verification system 180 may accept an account number from the service provider system 110 and, at 615, return to the service provider system 110 a response identifying the owner or other entity associated with the account/account number.),
generate, using a machine learning algorithm, a transformed result based on a degree of correspondence, wherein the transformed result includes a single overall score representing a probability that the target account corresponds to an intended target account (0045, an assurance score may be determined); and display, on the endpoint device prior to completion of the payment, the transformed result indicating that the target account corresponds to the intended target account ([0046] If (at 325) the service provider system 110 is not sufficiently assured that the destination account belongs to the intended beneficiary (“No”), then at 330, an alert or other notification is transmitted to the user device 130 to indicate, for example, that the destination account is not verified. the optional notification may be transmitted before, at the same time as, or after proceeding with processing of the payment request (at 645).).
Yamane does not disclose:
Using a machine learning algorithm
However, machine learning algorithms are old and well known per Suermondt (0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to perform the lookup analysis using machine learning for speed and efficiency.
Yamane does not disclose:
wherein the lookup is conducted in a national shared database repository storing aggregated target account data from a plurality of entities and accessible by a plurality of independent systems, wherein both the first input and the second input are validated against the aggregated target account data within the national shared database repository.
However, applicant’s specification discloses that national databases are old and well known (0039, national shared database resource, to which financial institutions regularly contribute their trusted account and transaction information).
Claim 29 is similarly rejected.
19. The system of claim 15, wherein the transformed result includes a validation of at least one of the first input or the second input (verification by both the beneficiary system 150 and the verification system 180 is required as validation of the account number. In some implementations, an assurance score may be determined. The assurance score may be proportional to confidence that the destination account belongs to the intended beneficiary. In some implementations, the assurance score may be, for example, relatively “high” when both the beneficiary system 150 and the verification system 180 have validated the account.)
20. The system of claim 19, wherein the transformed result is presented to indicate the validation of at least one of the first input or the second input ( if (at 325) the service provider system 110 is sufficiently assured that the destination account belongs to the intended beneficiary (“Yes”), then at 330, a notification or other message may optionally be transmitted to the user device 130 to indicate, for example, that the destination account is verified.).
Claim 31 is similarly rejected.
21. The system of claim 20, wherein the transformed result presented to indicate the validation of at least one of the first input and the second input further includes an indication of a caution (Fig. 5B, alert).
Claim 33 is similarly rejected.
22. The system of claim 21, wherein the indication of caution includes a level of caution ([0060] In certain versions, after an alert or other notification (indicating, e.g., that validation of the account number is pending, validation is unsuccessful, or that confidence in the account number is low) has been received by the user device 130.).
24. The system of claim 20, wherein the transformed result includes an indication of a no-results (see claim 22 above.)
Claim 32 is similarly rejected.
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (20200327550) and further in view of Suermondt (2003/0018658) and applicant admitted prior art as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Goel (US 7, 689,916).
Yamane does not disclose:
23. The system of claim 15, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to
display a pop-up window on a user device to present the transformed result.
However, Goel discloses a pop-up in the 1st para. Of the background. (4) Many web
pages and applications are constrained in screen space or back-end computing
resources and cannot always provide full detailed information or content to all users. In
these cases, users must click on a link to view detailed information either on a separate
page or as a pop-up.
Based on the disclosure above presenting information via a pop-up would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill.
Claims 16, 18, 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (20200327550) and further in view of Suermondt (2003/0018658) and applicant admitted prior art as applied to claim 15 and in view of Sgambati (10,346,620).
Yamane does not disclose:
The system of claim 15, wherein the lookup further comprises:
comparing the first input and the second input with data stored in the national shared database repository.
However, Sgambati discloses:
Abstract: The method can further include receiving a request for authentication for one or more queried data elements corresponding to a supplied identification data element. The method can include determining an authentication response for each of the queried data elements based on the authentication database. The method can further include transmitting the authentication response for each of the queried data elements to the requesting system.
Sgambati further discloses:
18. The system of claim 15, wherein the lookup results in a match between the data in the national shared database repository and at least one of the first input and the second input (Brief summary para. 2, the authentication response for each of the queried data elements is positive when the queried data element matches a data element value stored in the data element field corresponding to the supplied identification data element.).
Per Sgambati:
25. The system of claim 15, wherein the lookup results in no matches between the data in the national shared database repository and one of the first input and the second input (Brief summary para. 2, Optionally, the authentication response for each of the queried data elements is…negative when the queried data element does not match the data element value stored in the data element field corresponding to the supplied identification data element, and not available when the data element value is blank for the data element field corresponding to the supplied identification data element.).
Per Sgambati:
26. The system of claim 25, wherein the transformed result is presented to indicate no matches between the national shared database repository and one of the first input and the second input (Abstract, The method can further include transmitting the authentication response for each of the queried data elements to the requesting system.).
Sgambati discloses the National shared database repository recited in applicant’s specification therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine with Yamane as it is a publicly known and available resource.
Yamane discloses:
27. The system of claim 26, wherein the transformed result presented to indicate no matches includes an indication of caution (See claim 22).
28. The system of claim 27, wherein the indication of caution includes a level of caution (See claim 22).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (20200327550) and further in view of Suermondt (2003/0018658) and applicant admitted prior art and Sgambati as applied to claim 16 and in view of Hoopes (2007/0204001).
Yamane does not disclose:
The system of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to compare the first input and the second input with data stored in the national repository using fuzzy logic.
However, fuzzy logic is old and well known as a comparison technology per the prior art of Hoopes (0014).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to use a well-known technology like fuzzy logic when comparing data across databases.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 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 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.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights