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 are pending. Claims 15-35 are new. Claims 1-14 are canceled. Claims 15-35 are now pending.
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) 15-35 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):
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 through 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 associated with the first input is conducted in a first database repository and the lookup associated with the second input is conducted in a second database repository to validate the first input and the second input;
receive a result of the lookup from the server;
transform the result of the lookup using machine learning into a transformed result; and
present the transformed result on the endpoint device.
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 memory, processor, a platform, an activatable element and machine learning, all of which are generically recited such that they are not 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”, and the like. For example, Claims 16-21 and 29 further narrow the c\validation step. Claims 22, and 24-28 merely define the indication, claim 23 defines the manner in which the indication is displayed, which is a further use of a computer as a tool.
Claims 30-35 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 and 31 recite a lookup of the first input in a first database and lookup[ of the second input in a second database. The specification at 0040 only discloses a lookup of the first and second inputs in a first database and corroborating the first and second inputs in a second database.
Claim 35 recites performing a third and fourth lookup which are not disclosed by the specification.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 29 recites comparing the first input and the second input with data in the first database and comparing the first and second input with data in the second database. This lookup differs from the lookup of claim 15 and it is unclear if both lookup processes are performed for validation.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the input" in the last clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 15, 16, 18-22, 24-28 and 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (20200327550) and further in view of Suermondt (2003/0018658) and Mack (20220229913).
Yamane discloses:
15. 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 the 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 and second input through to a server, 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, system 110 includes circuit (hardware, i.e., server)), 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.),
receive a result of the lookup from the server (0057, 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. The payee name, once received from the user at 620, may be compared with the owner or other entity identified in the response from the verification system 180 to validate the account number.);
transform the result of the lookup [using machine learning] into a transformed result (0045, an assurance score may be determined); and
present the transformed result on the endpoint device ([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.).
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 associated with the first input is conducted in a first database repository and the lookup associated with the second input is conducted in a second database repository to validate the first input and the second input;
However, Mack discloses separate databases used to store separate pieces of user data (0040, 0041).
Claims 30 and 31 are similarly rejected.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the lookup further comprises: comparing the first input with data stored in the first database repository; and comparing the second input with data stored in the second database repository (Mack, 0041, pulling user data from separate databases).
It would have been obvious to modify Yamane with the separate databases of Mack in order to securely maintain user data as complete user data may be secured from threats of unauthorized access due to disparate storage.
18. The system of claim 15, wherein the lookup results in a match between at least one of the data in the first database repository and the second database repository and at least one of the first input and the second input (0057, 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. The payee name, once received from the user at 620, may be compared with the owner or other entity identified in the response from the verification system 180 to validate the account number.).
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 (0045, [0045] The service provider system 110 then determines, at 325, whether the response(s) from the beneficiary system 150 and/or from the verification system 180 indicate that the account number is validated. In certain implementations, verification by either the beneficiary system 150 or the verification system 180 is accepted as validation of the account number. In other implementations, 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).
Claim 32 is similarly rejected.
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 ([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.).
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, 5B, 580, alert).
Claim 34 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).
24. The system of claim 20, wherein the transformed result includes an indication of a no-results ([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).
Claim 33 is similarly rejected.
25. The system of claim 15, wherein the lookup results in no matches between the data in the first database repository and the data in the second database repository and the first input and the second input ([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).
26. The system of claim 25, wherein the transformed result is presented to indicate no matches between the data in the first database repository and the data in the second database repository and the first input and the second input ([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).
27. The system of claim 26, wherein the transformed result presented to indicate no matches includes an indication of caution (Fig. 5B, 5B, 580, alert).
28. The system of claim 27, 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).
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 Mack (20220229913) as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Hoopes (2007/0204001).
Yamane does not disclose:
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to compare the first input with data stored in the first database repository and compare the second input with data stored in the second database repository using fuzzy logic.
However, Fuzzy logic is well known as a comparison methodology per the prior art of Hoopes (0014).
Combining the prior art of Yamane with Hoopes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to match data that may differ slightly such as names which may include a middle name, incorrect spelling, etc., that may differentiate a name in the database with an input name but may nonetheless be the correct match.
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 Mack (20220229913) as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Alpert (6,092,081).
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.
Alpert discloses (Description 36, in the lower box 520, we illustrate how these tags will appear to the user. When the user clicks on one of the colored boxes, the goal or commentary tags appear as popup windows on the display. Alternatively, the system can include known functions called ballon help and tooltips which display small amounts of text after the mouse pointer hovers over them for a few seconds.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the alert of Yamane as a pop-up or tooltip for convenience and reduce screen clutter.
Conclusion
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
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694