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 . 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 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.
Claims 1-27 are pending.
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.
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.
The term “immediately” in claims 4, 13 and 22 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite because it lacks objective boundaries. It may be interpreted in various way, such as no delay, within a second, or within an unspecified acceptable time. The term “immediately” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
835 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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims when analyzed under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, are directed to abstract idea. Claim 1 for example, recites a method and, therefore, is a process. The claim 1 recites the limitation of: “constructing an application-programming interface (API) request…transmitting the API request…the resource server dynamically generates and transmits a response message…parsing the response message to identify a set of installment options…associating the set of installment options with a set of graphical user-interface elements…receiving a selection of an installment option…transmitting the selected installment option…the resource server authorizes transmittal of one or more resources associated with the selected installment option…fulfilling the transaction…and receiving the one or more resources associated with the selected installment option after fulfillment of the transaction”. These limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation are directed performance of the limitation in a human mind or by a human. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by human. For example, the claim 1 encompasses a human customer requests to buy a product, a clerk looks at a printed chart, identifies available installment plans and explains the option verbally or points to them on paper, the customer chooses an installment option, the clerk writes down or communicates the selected option to a manager or financing department, the store approves the transaction based on the selection, and the product is given to the customer after approval. Thus, the claim recites a mental process when analyzed under step 2A prong 1.
Claim 1 is further analyzed in step 2A prong 2, to evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. However, each of the remaining limitation (i.e., resource server, API) is recited at a high level of generality, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional element is no more than generic computer functions. Thus, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 is additionally analyzed under Step 2B to evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. When claims evaluated under step 2B, it is no more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication anything other than a generic computer component. The mere constructing an application-programming interface (API) request…transmitting the API request…the resource server dynamically generates and transmits a response message…parsing the response message to identify a set of installment options…associating the set of installment options with a set of graphical user-interface elements…receiving a selection of an installment option…transmitting the selected installment option…the resource server authorizes transmittal of one or more resources associated with the selected installment option…fulfilling the transaction…and receiving the one or more resources associated with the selected installment option after fulfillment of the transaction is a well-understood, routing and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here.
Independent claims 10 and 19 include limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2, 11 and 20 recite additional limitation of constructing the API request includes: parsing the user-profile data to determine that the user-profile data include one or more erroneous data components; and generating an error message to be presented on a web page, which can be performed by human. The claims do not recite additional element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 3, 12 and 21 recites additional limitation of wherein the set of installment options includes an option for a user to submit a portion of the requested resources to the resource server before receiving the requested resources, which is considered an extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 13 and 22 recites the limitation of wherein the set of installment options includes an option to immediately acquire the requested resources, which is considered an extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 14 and 23 include the limitation of wherein the set of installment options includes a denial of providing the requested resources but instead an approval associated with a portion of the requested resources, which is considered an extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 15 and 24 recite the limitation of wherein transmitting the API request includes: generating a digital signature for the API request; encrypting the API request to generate an encrypted request; and transmitting the digital signature and the encrypted request, which can be performed by human. A human can generate digital signature and encrypt a request by using a pen and paper and deliver the digital signature and encrypted request. The claims do not recite additional element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7, 16 and 25 recite the limitation of the response message is generated based on a score generated by a data-aggregation server, which can be performed by human. A human can generate a response message on a piece of paper based on a score. The claims do not recite additional element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8, 17 and 26 include the limitation of accessing terms-and-conditions data associated with the selected installment option before transmitting the selected installment option; and transmitting the terms-and-conditions data, wherein when a user device receives the terms-and-conditions data, the user device transmits an acceptance of the terms-and-conditions data, which is considered extra solution activity of data gathering for use in the claimed process that is well-known, routine, and conventional activity. Insignificant extra solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.
Claims 9, 18 and 27 recite the limitation of receiving a request to terminate the transaction; and transmitting the one or more resources associated with the selected installment option when the request to terminate the transaction is received, which is considered extra solution activity of data gathering for use in the claimed process that is well-known, routine, and conventional activity. Insignificant extra solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.
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 1, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto et al. (US Patent No.11,687,903 ), hereinafter Pinto, in view of Singh et al. (US Patent/ Publication No. 2023/0410080), hereinafter Singh.
As per claims 1, 10 and 19, Pinto discloses, a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving user-profile data associated with a request for resources to fulfill a transaction; constructing an application-programming interface (API) request based on the user- profile data (column 16, lines 30-47, “ The appropriate entity, with keys for accessing the installment eligibility check API may pass the necessary keys or derivatives thereof, along with interaction data, to the network computer 410. This may be executed directly (e.g., resource provider computer 406 performs a GET call on the installment eligibility check API). Alternatively, or additionally, at step 424, the transport computer 408 may manage access to the API and perform such a call on behalf of the resource provider computer 406 and/or access device 404. In any event, the network computer 410 receives, via the API, interaction data related to the interaction, which may include a total transaction amount, account number (e.g., Primary Account Number (PAN) of a payment card for the interaction, user identifier, merchant identifier, and/or the like”); transmitting the API request, wherein when the API request is received at a resource server, the resource server dynamically generates and transmits a response message (column 17, lines 36-41, the access device display the received installment plan option via GUI on a user device) ; parsing the response message to identify a set of installment options (column 17, lines 42-45, the user review and select an installment plan); associating the set of installment options with a set of graphical user-interface elements (figure 6, column 19, line 63-column 20, line 5); receiving a selection of an installment option, wherein the selection of the installment option is associated with a user interaction with a graphical user-interface element (column 17, lines 43- 53, the user tap a touchscreen or press a button to select a particular installment plan and receiving indication of the selected installment or payment plan);
transmitting the selected installment option, wherein when the selected installment option is received at the resource server, the resource server authorizes transmittal of one or more resources associated with the selected installment option (column 17, lines 45-54, receiving selected installment or payment plane, and column 18, lines 9-12, the network computer transmits an authorization response message to the access device, which is transmitted via the resource provider computer); fulfilling the transaction after transmitting the selected installment option (column 19, lines 13-24, “The network computer 410 may further transmit a plan confirmation message regarding the installment plan to the resource provider computer 406 and/or access device 404. The plan confirmation message may indicate that the installment plan has been accepted and initiated, as well as information such as the installment time, installment amount for each payment, total amount, and so forth. At step 446, the access device 404 may provide the user 402 with a receipt. The receipt may include installment information such as the installment plan, the total amount, the installment amount per installment payment, and the number of installments”).
Pinto does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Singh discloses, receiving the one or more resources associated with the selected installment option after fulfillment of the transaction (paragraph [0065], if the installment plan is approved by the bank, the buyer is notified, and transaction is completed 65”, figure 2c depicts that the complete transaction 65 includes buyer 10 receives goods/resources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pinto with Singh. This would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the predictable result of securely and conveniently providing requested services to buyer upon verification and completion of transaction.
As per claims 8, 17 and 26, Pinto furthermore discloses, accessing terms-and-conditions data associated with the selected installment option before transmitting the selected installment option; and transmitting the terms-and-conditions data, wherein when a user device receives the terms-and-conditions data, the user device transmits an acceptance of the terms-and-conditions data (column 17, lines 45-49, “Responsive to receiving an indication of the selected installment plan, the access device 404 ( or user device) may display terms and conditions (T&Cs). The user may accept the T&Cs at 436 to continue with the installment plan”).
Claims 2, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto in view of Singh, further in view of Perlman et al. (US Patent/ Publication No. 2010/0131408), hereinafter Perlman.
As per claims 2, 11 and 20, Pinto as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Perlman discloses, wherein constructing the API request includes: parsing the user-profile data to determine that the user-profile data include one or more erroneous data components; and generating an error message to be presented on a web page (paragraph [0026], “in step 506, the matching module 218 queries the user profile records 220 for a corresponding verification identifier, for example, by performing the same hash used to derive the stored verification identifier on the comparison identifier and then comparing the hashed result with the stored verification identifier in the user profile record 400… in step 508, the matching module 218 causes a message indicating a denial of the transfer to the financial institution… In step 512, the matching module 218 then determines whether the second financial account information included in the financial transaction matches the first financial account information stored in the user profile record 400… If it is determined that the first and second financial account information do not match in step 512, the method branches to step 508, and the matching module 218 causes a transfer denial message to be sent to the financial institution”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Pinto with Perlman. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to validate a relationship between a user and a user account at a financial institution.
Claims 3, 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto in view of Singh, further in view of Nijim et al. (US Patent No. 10,045,091), hereinafter Nijim.
As per claims 3, 12 and 21, Pinto as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Nijim discloses, wherein the set of installment options includes an option for a user to submit a portion of the requested resources to the resource server before receiving the requested resources (claim 1, “providing an indication of one or more of the tagged objects by displaying a tagged object in a scene of the video content item that indicates that the tagged object is selectable with the input operation; receiving the input operation to access the additional interactive content associated with each tagged object… displaying the additional interactive content with the video content item, wherein the displaying of the additional interactive content with the video content item includes displaying only the additional interactive content of interest to the subscriber in response to the input operation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Pinto with Nijim. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enable user to access a targeted portion of a selectable item.
Claims 4, 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto in view of Singh, further in view of Kotov et al. (US Patent No. 11,385,911), hereinafter Kotov.
As per claims 4, 13 and 22, Pinto as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Kotov discloses, wherein the set of installment options includes an option to immediately acquire the requested resources (column 7, lines 25-27, column 19, lines 8-11, “Similar to quick link fragment module, the quick action fragment modules enable the user to quickly access services”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Pinto with Kotov. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enable a quick and easy access to resources.
Claims 5, 14 and 23are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto in view of Singh, further in view of Gujarathi et al. (US Patent No. 11,586,434), hereinafter Gujarathi.
As per claims 5, 14 and 23, Pinto as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Gujarathi discloses, wherein the set of installment options includes a denial of providing the requested resources but instead an approval associated with a portion of the requested resources (column 22, lines 13, 20, “…resulting in the device 210 denying or blocking access to the first version 222 of the first application 220. The device 210 can permit partial access to a user of the client device 202…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Pinto with Gujarathi. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide users with access to application based on the context of the user, user device and attributes of the application.
Claims 6, 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto in view of Singh, further in view of Yadlin et al. (US Patent No.11,444,779), hereinafter Yadlin.
As per claims 6, 15 and 24, Pinto as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Yadlin discloses, wherein transmitting the API request includes: generating a digital signature for the API request; encrypting the API request to generate an encrypted request (column 9, lines 18-22, “the API request is signed using a distributed implementation of a digital signature algorithm (for example ECDSA/EdDSA/ED25519/HMAC), such that the full API secret is never reconstructed on any system. As non-limiting examples, such a digital signature algorithm may be ECDSA, Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA), Ed25519, HMAC (for example, HMAC over SHA-512) and the like”); and transmitting the digital signature and the encrypted request (column 10, lines 19-24, “the network interface 440 allows the MPC system 220 to communicate with, for example, the API service requestor device 210, the API service provider device 230, and the like, for purposes such as, but not limited to, receiving API request data, sending at least partially signed API requests, and the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Pinto with Yadlin. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to secure the application programing interface by using digital signature.
Claims 7, 9, 16, 18, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto in view of Singh, further in view of Rampell et al. (US Patent No. 10,387,948), hereinafter Rampell.
As per claims 7, 16 and 25, Pinto as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Rampell discloses, wherein the response message is generated based on a score generated by a data-aggregation server (column 46, lines 18-21, “compute a consumer score for a user 154 seeking to alternatively purchase a primary offer 164. The consumer score may be useful in facilitating offer bidding, and column 14, lines 23-26 the web browser may display a notification, such as a transition web page, wherein the user 154 may be asked to try the alternate payment platform 100 to view alternative offers 160”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Pinto with Rampell. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide user with resources based on user characteristics.
As per claim 9, 18 and 27, Pinto as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Rampell discloses, receiving a request to terminate the transaction; and transmitting the one or more resources associated with the selected installment option when the request to terminate the transaction is received (column 14, lines 15-26, “a user 154 may attempt to cancel the purchase of a primary offer 164 by exiting the payment processing website of a primary vendor 144 website…. Upon detecting that the user 154 is attempting to cancel the purchase…the web browser may display a notification, such as a transition web page, wherein the user 154 may be asked to try the alternate payment platform 100 to view alternative offers 160…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Pinto with Rampell. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow merchants to provide an opportunity for customers with low willingness to pay to for one merchant's item to engage with other merchants for whom the customers have a higher willingness to pay for the alternate merchant items).
References Cited, Not Used
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Driscoll et al. (US Publication No.2018/0330364) discloses, systems and methods that enable a vendor to utilize a digital wallet service to complete an online transaction with a user via a messaging channel, in a scenario where the vendor does not have a front end application running on the user's client device. An online digital wallet service generates and caches a payment request which is requested by the vendor, and provides the vendor with a reference to the cached payment request. The vendor provides the reference to the user such that the user can access the payment request via the link.
Anderson (US Publication No.2022/0398585) discloses, a system and method for providing a customer with a number of payment scenarios. The method receives at a payment provider computing system an inquiry about a payment scenario for a customer, the inquiry including identification information for the customer, utilizes the identification information to perform a credit prescreen, and
generates, based on a result of the credit prescreen, a plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms. The plurality of payment scenarios with associated terms is then provided to the customer and the customer selects the desired payment scenario. An agreement with the associated terms of the payment scenario is generated and provided to the payment provider computing system. The mobile device
provides the selected payment scenario to a retail computing system during a checkout process and the transaction is completed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)272-7961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:00 am-5:00pm (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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571)270-5143. 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.
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights