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 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 30, 31, 33, and 36-47are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 112(a) rejection(s) have been considered but are not persuasive.
See updated 112(a) rejection.
The 112(b) rejection is withdrawn with the claim amendments.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 103 rejection(s) have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 101 rejection(s) have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that these limitations do not recite a fundamental economic practice but, instead, recite a sequence of computer-implemented user interface operations. Accordingly, contrary to the Office Action's assertion, claim 15 is directed to a specific computerized interface workflow for machine-generated validation presentation in a payment-initiation environment, rather than to a fundamental economic practice or other abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
The Office asserts that even a specific computerized interface workflow for machine-generated validation presentation may include an abstract idea. In the present case the abstract idea described is merely applied by the specific computerized interface workflow which adds the words “apply it” to the abstract idea since the specific computerized workflow does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Applicant argues the claims recite a practical application directed to a specific technological problem identified in the Specification. In particular, the Specification explains that conventional electronic transfer systems "fail to provide adequate confirmation that the target account of a transfer is the customer's desired target account," and that "[i]mproved systems and methods for validating a target account are needed." See 1 [0004], [0005] Thus, the problem addressed by the claims is not a generalized business concern, but a deficiency in computerized payment systems that do not adequately validate target account data before completion of an electronic transfer.
The Office asserts that the claims do not recite an improvement at least because the assertion that prior art systems do not validate target accounts is incorrect as the prior art of Yamane discloses validating target accounts and related systems.
Applicant argues the claimed tooltip, hover, API-transmission, transformed-result, and pop-up presentation features operate together as a practical application that improves how computerized payment systems present pre-transaction validation information to a user.
The Office asserts that these elements merely provide a mechanism for displaying the validation results and the alleged improvement is a mere assertion with no basis suggested by the present Office guidance or precedential court decisions.
Applicant argues a nexus between the claims and those of example 42 but the reasoning is unclear and therefore moot.
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) 1 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 30, 31, 33, and 36-47 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 and a hover element for display on the platform, wherein the tooltip provides an indication of a payment initiation validation, wherein the hover element triggers the tooltip to display a pop-up window;
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;
transmit, via an application programming interface (API), from the endpoint device to the server, the first input and the second input;
upon receipt of the first input and the second input, enable selection of an activatable element, wherein selection of the activatable element initiates a lookup of one or more repositories;
in response to selection of the activatable element, transmit the first input and the second input to a server associated with the one or more repositories;
perform the lookup associated with the first input and the second input in the one or more repositories;
receive a result of the lookup from the server;
transform the result of the lookup using machine learning into a transformed result, wherein the transformed result is a single overall score, wherein the single overall score represents a probability that the target account is an intended target account;
transmit. via the API, the transformed result for display at the endpoint device;
in response to an interaction with the hover element, display the pop-up window on the endpoint device, wherein the pop-up window provides instructional information associated with the indication of the tooltip.
The underlined elements 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. Claim 17 merely narrows the comparison step and add additional computer implementation of fuzzy logic. Claims 18, 19, 21, 22, and 30. Claims 31, 33, 36-47 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.
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 a tooltip which provides an indication of a payment initiation validation…performing a lookup…receiving a result of the lookup…transforming the result of the lookup into a transformed result…changing the indication of the tooltip based on the transformed result.
Per applicant’s specification:
PNG
media_image1.png
381
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[00043]The payment portal 402 on interface 406 may be a web-based application. For example, FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary display of a platform 500 that enables payment initiation. In FIG. 5, a user may enter a payment input in a payment box 502, a first input into dialog box 504, and a second input into dialog box 506. A user may click a button 508 and, in response to the click, a processor may search a first repository for information that matches the information entered into dialog box 504 and dialog box 506.
Button 508 appears to be the activatable element claimed.
Per figures 6, 7 and 8, activatable element 508 may display a response including validated, no response and caution as a result.
[00051]Disclosed embodiments may include presenting a result of the lookup, wherein the result includes at least one of a validation, a no-result, or a caution. In some embodiments, the result may include a no-result and a caution. Alternatively, as discussed above, the result may include a validation. Additionally, or alternatively, the result may include only a caution. The result may be binary (e.g., validated or not validated). Additionally, or alternatively, the result may provide a level of caution, for example, on a scale between one and ten based on an artificial intelligence or machine learning algorithm.
The results discussed above appear to be the “transformed result” claimed.
[00054]Disclosed embodiments may include presenting a result of the lookup, wherein the result is a transformed result based on how closely the data stored in a repository matches the data provided in a first input and a second input, and includes a caution, and upon presentation of the result, causing the presentation of a pop-up window on a user device.
[00061]At step 1012, the network 240 presents the results of the lookup conducted in step 1010 for the user to observe. The result of the lookup may be a transformed result to simplify the retrieved data. For example, the result may be a validation 610 such as described in FIG. 6 (“Validated”).
The Office asserts that the indication of the tooltip (validated, no result, caution) is the transformed result. Therefore, changing or updating the indication of the tooltip would mean changing the result but the specification does not disclose changing the result. The result may be the validated, no result or caution as described above and there is no disclosure of changing the validated, no result or caution into another result. The claims also recite the transformed result being a score (para. 0041). The score would be an alternative to the results previously mentioned.
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