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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-15 are directed to a system or method, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES”).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 9 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 1. Claim 9 recites the limitations of in store customer identification for payment transaction.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Receiving a connection request from user device; connection request = user id + subscriber ID + user device ID; sending user ID to a user ID management server; receiving a user identity from user ID management server; requesting & receiving payment card info from payment card management system; generating payment request with payment card detail; and receiving payment confirmation, – specifically, the claim recites: “receive a connection request… the connection request comprising a user identifier of a user, a subscriber identity module number associated with the user, and a device identifier of a device associated with the user; send a user identity generation request… receive a user identity for the user… request payment card details associated with the user identity… receive payment card details associated with the user identity… generate a payment request comprising the payment card details associated with the user identity; and receive payment confirmation in response to the payment request”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a user account processing system”, “a processor”, “a data storage device”, “computer program instructions”, “a user device”, “a user identity management server”, and “a payment card management system”, in claim 1, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 9 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a user account processing system, a processor, a user device, a user identity management server, and a payment card management system; a storage unit such as a data storage device; and software module and algorithm such as computer program instructions. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1 and 9 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 9 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of the user identifier of a user comprises a mobile telephone number associated with the user, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of the device identifier of the device associated with the user comprises an international mobile equipment identity number of the device associated with the user, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of the data storage device further stores instructions operable to cause the processor to receive an indication of a location of the user device within a merchant premise and wherein the payment request is generated in response to the location being in proximity to a checkout location or area, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the data storage device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of the data storage device further stores instructions operable to cause the processor to identify a user merchant account associated with the user from the user identity, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the data storage device” and “the processor” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 discloses the limitation of the data storage device further stores instructions operable to cause the processor to associate a user merchant account with the user identity, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the data storage device” and “the processor” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of the data storage device further stores instructions operable to cause the processor to associate a user merchant account with the user identity by associating an existing user merchant account with the user identity, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the data storage device” and “the processor” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of the data storage device further stores instructions operable to cause the processor to associate a user merchant account with the user identity by generating a new user merchant account, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the data storage device” and “the processor” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 discloses the limitation of identifying a user merchant account associated with the user from the user identity, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of associating a user merchant account with the user identity, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of receiving the user identity generation request from a requestor server, the user identity generation request comprising the user identifier of the user, the subscriber identity module number associated with the user, and the device identifier of the device associated with the user; generating the user identity for the user as a combination function of the user identifier of the user, the subscriber identity module number associated with the user, and the device identifier of the device associated with the user; and sending the user identity for the user to the requestor server, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a requestor server” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of the combination function is a hash function, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of the user identifier of a user comprises a mobile telephone number associated with the user, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 discloses the limitation of the device identifier of the device associated with the user comprises an international mobile equipment identity number of the device associated with the user, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-15 are not patent-eligible.
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 of this title, 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 1-7, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieter (20240220961) in view of Park (KR20160105279A).
Regarding claim 1, Dieter discloses
a user account processing system, comprising: a processor, and a data storage device, data storage device storing computer program instructions operable to cause the processor to
(“[0225] FIG. 16 depicts a computing machine 2000 and a module 2050 in accordance with certain examples. The computing machine 2000 may correspond to any of the various computers, servers, mobile devices, embedded systems, or computing systems presented herein. The module 2050 may comprise one or more hardware or software elements configured to facilitate the computing machine 2000 in performing the various methods and processing functions presented herein. The computing machine 2000 may include various internal or attached components such as a processor 2010, system bus 2020, system memory 2030, storage media 2040, input/output interface 2060, and a network interface 2070 for communicating with a network 2080”).
See also, FIG. 1 below, hands-free transaction
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receive a connection request from a user device, send a user identity generation request to a user identity management server; receive a user identity for the user from the user identity management server
(“[0009] In an example, a hands-free transaction is processed by utilizing an account management system to authorize a transaction and to provide payment account information to a payment processing system… the account management system identifies the user payment information”).
See also Fig 15, item 1510 & 1530
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
request payment card details associated with the user identity from a payment card management system;
receive payment card details associated with the user identity from the payment card management system
(“[0009] In an example, a hands-free transaction is processed by utilizing an account management system to authorize a transaction and to provide payment account information to a payment processing system… After the account of the user is verified, the merchant POS device generates a payment authorization request (also referred to as transaction request herein) based on a user verification and other transaction information. The merchant POS device transmits the payment authorization request to the account management system”).
generate a payment request comprising the payment card details associated with the user identity
(“[0009] In an example, a hands-free transaction is processed by utilizing an account management system to authorize a transaction and to provide payment account information to a payment processing system while allowing the transaction settlement to occur between the payment processing system and the merchant. After the account of the user is verified, the merchant POS device generates a payment authorization request (also referred to as transaction request herein) based on a user verification and other transaction information. The merchant POS device transmits the payment authorization request to the account management system, and the account management system identifies the user payment information. The account management system receives an authorization from the payment processing system and transmits the payment authorization to the merchant. The merchant salesperson completes the transaction with the user by providing the product or service being purchased. The payment processing system and the merchant system then settle the transaction without involvement of account management system”).
receive payment confirmation in response to the payment request
(“[0219] The merchant POS device 130 displays a confirmation of the approved transaction to the user 101. An example confirmation of the approved transaction may include a total amount charged to the user 101 payment account, an identification of the user 101 payment account, a merchant system 170 name, and/or other relevant or useful information”).
Dieter does not disclose, however, Park teaches
[the connection request comprising a user identifier of a user, a subscriber identity module number associated with the user, and a device identifier of a device associated with the user]
(page 219, para 1 “The financial server transmits the OTP to the electronic device A using the registered customer information (telephone number, e-mail address) with the selected identification method.”
“page 26, para 2 The payment management module may receive information from the user or from the payment server 720, such as information related to the card information (e.g., password, home address, email address, phone number, or account ID).”).
(“page 57, para 6 the user information may include a device profile, a user ID, an app ID, and a card reference ID (identy). The device profile may include, for example, a device ID (e.g., an arbitrary random value that can identify an international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) or Device)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dieter to include [the connection request comprising a user identifier of a user, a subscriber identity module number associated with the user, and a device identifier of a device associated with the user] as taught by Park to establish various recognized information that are usually available (e.g. phone number and IMEI identification) to help identify and authenticate the user to reduce additional authentication process – see page 200, para 6 “Once the payment application including the account management module is installed, the setting status of some or all of the existing registered cards can be continuously used in any one of the devices at a time of the user's account login process. Also, the membership information with relatively low authentication security level may be registered and associated with the user's account, thereby reducing the additional authentication process. According to one embodiment, the authentication module 1835 may display a card for payment or a user interface (UI) for performing authentication of a user through a display”.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dieter and Park, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Dieter does not disclose, however, Park further discloses
wherein the user identifier of a user comprises a mobile telephone number associated with the user
(page 219, para 1 “The financial server transmits the OTP to the electronic device A using the registered customer information (telephone number, e-mail address) with the selected identification method.”
“page 26, para 2 The payment management module may receive information from the user or from the payment server 720, such as information related to the card information (e.g., password, home address, email address, phone number, or account ID).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dieter to include wherein the user identifier of a user comprises a mobile telephone number associated with the user as taught by Park to establish various recognized information that are usually available (e.g. phone number and IMEI identification) to help identify and authenticate the user to reduce additional authentication process – see page 200, para 6 “Once the payment application including the account management module is installed, the setting status of some or all of the existing registered cards can be continuously used in any one of the devices at a time of the user's account login process. Also, the membership information with relatively low authentication security level may be registered and associated with the user's account, thereby reducing the additional authentication process. According to one embodiment, the authentication module 1835 may display a card for payment or a user interface (UI) for performing authentication of a user through a display”.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dieter and Park, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Dieter does not disclose, however, Park further discloses
wherein the device identifier of the device associated with the user comprises an international mobile equipment identity number of the device associated with the user
(“page 57, para 6 the user information may include a device profile, a user ID, an app ID, and a card reference ID (identy). The device profile may include, for example, a device ID (e.g., an arbitrary random value that can identify an international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) or Device)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dieter to include wherein the device identifier of the device associated with the user comprises an international mobile equipment identity number of the device associated with the user as taught by Park to the motivation to establish various recognized information that are usually available (e.g. phone number and IMEI identification) to help identify and authenticate the user to reduce additional authentication process – see page 200, para 6 “Once the payment application including the account management module is installed, the setting status of some or all of the existing registered cards can be continuously used in any one of the devices at a time of the user's account login process. Also, the membership information with relatively low authentication security level may be registered and associated with the user's account, thereby reducing the additional authentication process. According to one embodiment, the authentication module 1835 may display a card for payment or a user interface (UI) for performing authentication of a user through a display. The authentication module may include, for example, a biometric information module.”
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dieter and Park, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Dieter further discloses
wherein the data storage device further stores instructions operable to cause the processor to receive an indication of a location of the user device within a merchant premise and wherein the payment request is generated in response to the location being in proximity to a checkout location or area
(“[0020] FIG. 9 is a block flow diagram depicting a method for updating, by a merchant point of sale device, a current customer log as users enter or leave a network range of a merchant beacon device, in accordance with certain examples”).
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dieter and Park, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Dieter further discloses
wherein the data storage device further stores instructions operable to cause the processor to identify a user merchant account associated with the user from the user identity
(“[0009] In an example, a hands-free transaction is processed by utilizing an account management system to authorize a transaction and to provide payment account information to a payment processing system while allowing the transaction settlement to occur between the payment processing system and the merchant. After the account of the user is verified, the merchant POS device generates a payment authorization request (also referred to as transaction request herein) based on a user verification and other transaction information. The merchant POS device transmits the payment authorization request to the account management system, and the account management system identifies the user payment information. The account management system receives an authorization from the payment processing system and transmits the payment authorization to the merchant. The merchant salesperson completes the transaction with the user by providing the product or service being purchased. The payment processing system and the merchant system then settle the transaction without involvement of account management system”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dieter and Park, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Dieter further discloses
wherein the data storage device further stores instructions operable to cause the processor to associate a user merchant account with the user identity
(“[0009] In an example, a hands-free transaction is processed by utilizing an account management system to authorize a transaction and to provide payment account information to a payment processing system while allowing the transaction settlement to occur between the payment processing system and the merchant. After the account of the user is verified, the merchant POS device generates a payment authorization request (also referred to as transaction request herein) based on a user verification and other transaction information. The merchant POS device transmits the payment authorization request to the account management system, and the account management system identifies the user payment information. The account management system receives an authorization from the payment processing system and transmits the payment authorization to the merchant. The merchant salesperson completes the transaction with the user by providing the product or service being purchased. The payment processing system and the merchant system then settle the transaction without involvement of account management system”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dieter and Park, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Dieter further discloses
wherein the data storage device further stores instructions operable to cause the processor to associate a user merchant account with the user identity by associating an existing user merchant account with the user identity
Examiner notes that an “existing user merchant account” is not defined by the claims or specification. As written, there is no way to distinguish a user merchant account from an existing user merchant account. For compact prosecution, the examiner is assuming that they are the same. This makes sense because the applicant does not disclose how/who creates the user merchant account, only that it is identified (see claim 5) and things can be identified because they already exist. If this is not the case, the applicant is invited to explain. As such, the relevant prior art teaching are – (“[0009] In an example, a hands-free transaction is processed by utilizing an account management system to authorize a transaction and to provide payment account information to a payment processing system while allowing the transaction settlement to occur between the payment processing system and the merchant. After the account of the user is verified, the merchant POS device generates a payment authorization request (also referred to as transaction request herein) based on a user verification and other transaction information. The merchant POS device transmits the payment authorization request to the account management system, and the account management system identifies the user payment information. The account management system receives an authorization from the payment processing system and transmits the payment authorization to the merchant. The merchant salesperson completes the transaction with the user by providing the product or service being purchased. The payment processing system and the merchant system then settle the transaction without involvement of account management system”).
Claim 9 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1. The examiner notes that claim 12 is very similar to claim 1; the primary difference being claim 12 uses “requestor server” instead of “user device” used in claim 1. The Specification does not define what could constitute “requestor server”. Broadest reasonable interpretation can include any electronic device. As the steps are substantially similar, it is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 8 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieter in view of Park, further in view of and Yu (CN16957731A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dieter and Park, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Dieter and Park do not disclose but Yu does teaches
wherein the data storage device further stores instructions operable to cause the processor to associate a user merchant account with the user identity by generating a new user merchant account
(“page 10, para 5 In the embodiment of the disclosure, after the user receives the care information, the user enters the system according to the system access port in the care information… , when the user enters the system through the system access port, obtaining the access authority of the user account corresponding to the order information, and obtaining the personal information in the user account based on the access authority, wherein the personal information comprises the contact mode of the user. after the system obtains the personal information of the user, the personal information is matched with the personal information in the existing member account in the system, if the matching is successful, it indicates that the user has become a member of the shop, then the corresponding order information is added to the successfully matched member account, if the matching is not successful, if the user logs in for the first time, generating a new user member account in the system based on the personal information, and storing the order information to the generated member account”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination Dieter and Park to include wherein the data storage device further stores instructions operable to cause the processor to associate a user merchant account with the user identity by generating a new user merchant account as taught by Yu to generate a new user account in the merchant system after the user information is not matched in the system to create a new member for the merchant – see page 10, para 5 “In the embodiment of the disclosure, after the user receives the care information, the user enters the system according to the system access port in the care information, and the private domain application constructed by the system can be set in a microtrust small program or a dither small program, which is determined by the shop of the merchant. when the user enters the system through the system access port, obtaining the access authority of the user account corresponding to the order information, and obtaining the personal information in the user account based on the access authority, wherein the personal information comprises the contact mode of the user. after the system obtains the personal information of the user, the personal information is matched with the personal information in the existing member account in the system, if the matching is successful, it indicates that the user has become a member of the shop, then the corresponding order information is added to the successfully matched member account, if the matching is not successful, if the user logs in for the first time, generating a new user member account in the system based on the personal information, and storing the order information to the generated member account”.
Claim 13 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieter in view of Park, further in view of and Kirschbaum (EP3021273A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dieter and Park, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Dieter and Park do not disclose but Kirschbaum does teaches
the combination function is a hash function
(“Page 13, para 5 – page 14, para 1: The alias data can result from any transformation of this user identifier or user identifiers, for example a transformation by applying a hash function. The transformation function is chosen such that the alias data obtained by transformation is unique and permanent, thus allowing unambiguous identification by the platform 2 of the subscriber's physical person of the customer account and also of the mobile terminal of the user. . This alias data is used as the unique identifier of the mobile terminal 1 of the user with the server 3 of the service provider”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination Dieter and Park to include the combination function is a hash function as taught by Kirschbaum to allow unambiguous identification of user by a platform system while retaining the uniqueness of the identification with other the platform systems – see Page 13, para 5 – page 14, para 1: The alias data can result from any transformation of this user identifier or user identifiers, for example a transformation by applying a hash function. The transformation function is chosen such that the alias data obtained by transformation is unique and permanent, thus allowing unambiguous identification by the platform 2 of the subscriber's physical person of the customer account and also of the mobile terminal of the user. . This alias data is used as the unique identifier of the mobile terminal 1 of the user with the server 3 of the service provider.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Purves (11941008) teaches converged merchant processing apparatuses, methods and systems.
Sharma (11538013) teaches methods, apparatuses, and systems for user account-affiliated payment and billing, consolidated digital biller-payment wallets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693