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
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):
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;
generate a tooltip for display on the platform, wherein the tooltip provides information about the platform;
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 in the server;
receive a result of the lookup from the server;
transform the result of the lookup using machine learning into a transformed result;
update the tooltip using a machine learning model, wherein the updated tooltip displays information about the transformed result;
present the transformed result on the endpoint device; and
present the updated tooltip with 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 processor, a platform, an activatable element, a tooltip 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.
Claim 31 and its dependents are similarly rejected. Claims 16 and 17 merely narrow the comparison step and add additional computer implementation of fuzzy logic. Claims 18-22, 24, 26-29, and 33-35 again narrow the comparison step. Claims 23, 25, 30 and 33-35 add the words “apply it”.
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.
Claim 15, 16 and 18-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (20200327550) and further in view of Goel (US 7689916 B1) and Suermondt (2003/0018658).
Yamane discloses:
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 (0004) to:
generate a platform that enables payment initiation on an endpoint device; access the platform (0052, Referring to FIG. 5A, 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 (0055, service provider system 110 receives the entered data, 0032 each device in system 100 may be implemented via hardware (e.g., circuitry), 0071, a given circuit or components thereof may be disposed locally (e.g., as part of a local server, a local computing system, etc.) or remotely (e.g., as part of a remote server such as a cloud based server).);
perform a lookup associated with 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.),
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);
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:
generate a tooltip for display on the platform, wherein the tooltip provides information about the platform.
update the tooltip [using a machine learning model], wherein the updated tooltip displays information about the transformed result (Yamane discloses presenting the transformed result in 0046 as shown above);
However Goel discloses;
(background 1st para., Some web applications provide tooltips with a single level of static content when a user hovers their mouse pointer over certain display elements (controls).);
The information provided about the platform is considered printed matter and does not receive patentable weight per MPEP 2111.05.
(summary section para. 2, According to this aspect of the invention, when a pointer points to an item (word, term, icon, image, etc.) on a display, then in response to the pointer pointing to the item for a first predetermined time, a tooltip that includes first information is displayed for the item. In response to the pointer pointing to the item for an additional second predetermined time, a tooltip that includes second information that differs at least in part from the first information is displayed for the item.)
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.
Goel is generally directed to efficiently displaying information on user devices using tooltips. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Yamane with the tooltips of Goel for efficiency.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the lookup further comprises: comparing the first input and the second input with data stored in the server (see 0057 as above).
18. The system of claim 15, wherein: the lookup results in a match between data in the server and at least one of the first input and the second input (0057 above); and the processor is further configured to update the tooltip to display information regarding the match (see Goel as above).
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, assurance score).
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 (see 0045 and 0046 as above); and the processor is further configured to update the tooltip to display information regarding the validation (Goel as above).
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 (printed matter as above).
22. The system of claim 21, wherein the indication of caution includes a level of caution (printed matter as above).
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 at least one of the transformed result or the tooltip.
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.
Presenting information via a pop-up would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
24. The system of claim 20, wherein: the transformed result includes an indication of a no-results; and the processor is further configured to update the tooltip to display information regarding the indication of the no-results (see printed matter and Goel as above).
25. The system of claim 24, wherein the processor is further configured to update the tooltip to display information requesting review of at least one of the first input and the second input (See printed matter as above).
26. The system of claim 15, wherein the lookup results in no matches between data in the server and one of the first input and the second input (0046 as above, not verified).
27. The system of claim 26, wherein: the transformed result is presented to indicate no matches between the data in the server and one of the first input and the second input (0046 as above, not verified); and the processor is further configured to update the tooltip to display information regarding the no matches (See Goel as above).
28. The system of claim 27, wherein the transformed result presented to indicate no matches includes an indication of caution (printed matter as per claim 21).
29. The system of claim 28, wherein the indication of caution includes a level of caution (printed matter as per claim 22).
30. The system of claim 29, wherein the processor is further configured to update the tooltip to display information regarding the level of caution (Per Goel and printed matter above).
Claims 31-35 are similar to claims 15, 20, 24, and 28 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (20200327550) and further in view of Goel (US 7689916 B1) and Suermondt (2003/0018658) as a pplied to claim 16 and further in view of Official Notice.
17. 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 server (see 0057 as above) [using fuzzy logic]; and
update the tooltip to display information regarding any differences between the data stored in the server and the first input and the second input (printed matter as above).
Yamane does not disclose fuzzy logic however, fuzzy logic is old and well known and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when data cannot be reasonably considered to fall into a yes/no category, for example names may differ in presentation by including shortened versions, middle names, etc.
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, 31 and their dependents 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 updating a tooltip but the specification does not disclose this feature.
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.
Claim 23 is 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 23 recites display a pop-up window to present the transformed result or the tooltip. It is unclear if the pop-up window can present the transformed result or can present the tooltip or if the transformed result is presented via a pop-up window or a tooltip.
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