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
Claim 1 is cancelled per applicant’s filing, 3/26/2025.
Claims 2-21 are pending. Claims 2-21 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted 1/20/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,324 (“ the ‘324 patent”).
Claims 2-8 of the present application
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the ‘324 patent recites a system, comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
detecting, from a first user device of a claimer, an indication associated with a redemption request of a stored value digital resource, wherein an electronically presented user interface (UI) element associated with a navigation link, displayed on the first user device, enables a user of the first user device to facilitate a redemption of the stored value digital resource;
receiving, from the first user device, a unique digital identifier of the stored value digital resource and a first device identifier of the first user device;
accessing purchase account information stored in a database by querying the database with the unique digital identifier of the stored valued digital resource, wherein the accessing the purchase account information comprises determining the purchase account information from account information of an establisher account of an establisher and a time of a creation of the stored value digital resource, wherein the establisher account was used by the establisher for the creation of the stored value digital resource, wherein the purchase account information associated with the establisher account corresponds to a first user account of an electronic transaction service provider, and wherein the purchase account information includes one or more of a total amount of purchase for one or more past transactions in a transaction history of the first user account, a quantity of gift cards purchased by the first user account, a quantity of times a gift card code has been accessed by the first user account, a quantity of digital gift cards sent to a same receiver by the first user account, an indication whether the first user account has a negative balance or has had a past negative balance, a quantity of times that an IP address was associated with a transaction used by the first user account to purchase the stored value digital resource, an indication whether the first user account has been dormant for a period of time, a quantity of different IP addresses used to access the first user account, an indication whether the IP address used in the transaction to purchase the stored value digital resource matches a primary country of the first user account, an indication whether the first user account has any account restrictions by the electronic transaction service provider, or an indication whether the first user account has an indication of an account takeover, and wherein the purchase account information further comprises information regarding whether the first user account has any reversed transactions after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource;
accessing online data associated with the first user device of the claimer, wherein the online data of the claimer comprises an indication of a fraudulent activity after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource;
executing a machine learning engine based on at least a portion of the purchase account information associated with the establisher account and the online data associated with the claimer, wherein the executing comprises:
determining, via the executed machine learning engine based on input associated with at least the portion of the purchase account information and the online data of the first user device, a classification of each of a plurality of categories associated with a fraudulent creation and a fraudulent access of the stored value digital resource after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource, and
determining, via the executed machine learning engine, an output value that classifies the stored value digital resource based on the classification of each of the plurality of categories; and
based on the determined output value from the classification of the stored value digital resource:
allowing a use of the stored value digital resource by the first user device by outputting a redemption allowance action to the first user device through a user interface (UI) for the redemption request, or
disallowing the use of the stored value digital resource by the first user device by restricting an access to the stored value through the UI for the redemption request.
Claim 1 of the ‘324 patent differs since claim 1 of the ‘324 patent recites additional claim limitations including “wherein the purchase account information associated with the establisher account corresponds to a first user account of an electronic transaction service provider, and wherein the purchase account information includes one or more of a total amount of purchase for one or more past transactions in a transaction history of the first user account, a quantity of gift cards purchased by the first user account, a quantity of times a gift card code has been accessed by the first user account, a quantity of digital gift cards sent to a same receiver by the first user account, an indication whether the first user account has a negative balance or has had a past negative balance, a quantity of times that an IP address was associated with a transaction used by the first user account to purchase the stored value digital resource, an indication whether the first user account has been dormant for a period of time, a quantity of different IP addresses used to access the first user account, an indication whether the IP address used in the transaction to purchase the stored value digital resource matches a primary country of the first user account, an indication whether the first user account has any account restrictions by the electronic transaction service provider, or an indication whether the first user account has an indication of an account takeover”, “determining, via the executed machine learning engine, an output value that classifies the stored value digital resource based on the classification of each of the plurality of categories”. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of the ‘324 patent by removing the limitations since the claims of the present application and the claim recited in the ‘324 patent actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9-16 of the present application
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 14 of the ‘324 patent recites a method, comprising:
detecting, by a computer system from a first user device of a claimer, an indication associated with a redemption request of a stored value digital resource, wherein an electronically presented user interface (UI) element associated with a navigation link, displayed on the first user device, enables a user of the first user device to facilitate a redemption of the stored value digital resource;
receiving, by the computer system from the first user device, a unique digital identifier of the stored value digital resource and a first device identifier of the first user device;
accessing, by the computer system, purchase account information stored in a database by querying the database with the unique digital identifier of the stored valued digital resource, wherein the accessing the purchase account information comprises determining the purchase account information from account information of an establisher account of an establisher and a time of a creation of the stored value digital resource, wherein the establisher account that was used by the establisher for the creation of the stored value digital resource, wherein the purchase account information associated with the establisher account corresponds to a first user account of an electronic transaction service provider, and wherein the purchase account information includes one or more of a total amount of purchase for one or more past transactions in a transaction history of the first user account, a quantity of gift cards purchased by the first user account, a quantity of times a gift card code has been accessed by the first user account, a quantity of digital gift cards sent to a same receiver by the first user account, an indication whether the first user account has a negative balance or has had a past negative balance, a quantity of times that an IP address was associated with a transaction used by the first user account to purchase the stored value digital resource, an indication whether the first user account has been dormant for a period of time, a quantity of different IP addresses used to access the first user account, an indication whether the IP address used in the transaction to purchase the stored value digital resource matches a primary country of the first user account, an indication whether the first user account has any account restrictions by the electronic transaction service provider, or an indication whether the first user account has an indication of an account takeover, and wherein the purchase account information further comprises information regarding the first user account has any reversed transactions after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource;
accessing, by the computer system, online data associated with the first user device of the claimer, wherein the online data of the claimer comprises has an indication of a fraudulent activity after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource;
executing, by the computer system, a machine learning engine based on at least a portion of the purchase account information associated with the establisher account and the online data associated with the claimer, wherein the executing comprises:
determining, via the executed machine learning engine based on input associated with at least the portion of the purchase account information and the online data of the first user device, a classification of each of a plurality of categories associated with a fraudulent creation and a fraudulent access of the stored value digital resource after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource, and
determining, via the executed machine learning engine, an output value that classifies the stored value digital resource based on the classification of each of the plurality of categories; and
based on the determined output value from the classification of the stored value digital resource:
allowing, by the computer system, a use of the stored value digital resource by the first user device by outputting a redemption allowance action to the first user device through a user interface (UI) for the redemption request, or
disallowing, by the computer system, the use of the stored value digital resource by the first user device by restricting access to the stored value through the UI for the redemption request.
Claim 14 of the ‘324 patent differs since claim 14 of the ‘324 patent recites additional claim limitations including “detecting, by a computer system from a first user device of a claimer, an indication associated with a redemption request of a stored value digital resource”, “wherein the establisher account that was used by the establisher for the creation of the stored value digital resource, wherein the purchase account information associated with the establisher account corresponds to a first user account of an electronic transaction service provider, and wherein the purchase account information includes one or more of a total amount of purchase for one or more past transactions in a transaction history of the first user account, a quantity of gift cards purchased by the first user account, a quantity of times a gift card code has been accessed by the first user account, a quantity of digital gift cards sent to a same receiver by the first user account, an indication whether the first user account has a negative balance or has had a past negative balance, a quantity of times that an IP address was associated with a transaction used by the first user account to purchase the stored value digital resource, an indication whether the first user account has been dormant for a period of time, a quantity of different IP addresses used to access the first user account, an indication whether the IP address used in the transaction to purchase the stored value digital resource matches a primary country of the first user account, an indication whether the first user account has any account restrictions by the electronic transaction service provider, or an indication whether the first user account has an indication of an account takeover, and wherein the purchase account information further comprises information regarding the first user account has any reversed transactions after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource”, “determining, via the executed machine learning engine, an output value that classifies the stored value digital resource based on the classification of each of the plurality of categories”. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 14 of the ‘324 patent by removing the limitations since the claims of the present application and the claim recited in the ‘324 patent actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 17-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of the ‘324 patent in view of Choudhuri et al. (US 2013/0024375 (“Choudhuri”)).
Claims 17-21 of the present application
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 8 of the ‘324 patent recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computer system, cause the processor of the computer system to perform operations comprising:
detecting, from a first user device of a claimer, an indication associated with a redemption request of a stored value digital resource, wherein an electronically presented user interface (UI) element associated with a navigation link, displayed on the first user device, enables a user of the first user device to facilitate a redemption of the stored value digital resource;
receiving, from the first user device, a unique digital identifier of the stored value digital resource and a first device identifier of the first user device;
accessing purchase account information stored in a database by querying the database with the unique digital identifier of the stored valued digital resource, wherein the accessing the purchase account information comprises determining the purchase account information from account information of an establisher account of an establisher and a time of a creation of the stored value digital resource, wherein the establisher account was used by the establisher for the creation of the stored value digital resource, wherein the purchase account information associated with the establisher account corresponds to a first user account of an electronic transaction service provider, and wherein the purchase account information includes one or more of a total amount of purchase for one or more past transactions in a transaction history of the first user account, a quantity of gift cards purchased by the first user account, a quantity of times a gift card code has been accessed by the first user account, a quantity of digital gift cards sent to a same receiver by the first user account, an indication whether the first user account has a negative balance or has had a past negative balance, a quantity of times that an IP address was associated with a transaction used by the first user account to purchase the stored value digital resource, an indication whether the first user account has been dormant for a period of time, a quantity of different IP addresses used to access the first user account, an indication whether the IP address used in the transaction to purchase the stored value digital resource matches a primary country of the first user account, an indication whether the first user account has any account restrictions by the electronic transaction service provider, or an indication whether the first user account has an indication of an account takeover, and wherein the purchase account information further comprises information regarding whether the first user account has any reversed transactions after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource;
accessing online data associated with the first user device of the claimer, wherein the online data of the claimer comprises an indication of a fraudulent activity after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource;
executing a machine learning engine based on at least a portion of the purchase account information associated with the establisher account and the online data associated with the claimer, wherein the executing comprises:
determining, via the executed machine learning engine based on input associated with at least the portion of the purchase account information and the online data of the first user device, a classification of each of a plurality of categories associated with a fraudulent creation and a fraudulent access of the stored value digital resource after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource, and
determining, via the executed machine learning engine, an output value that classifies the stored value digital resource based on the classification of each of the plurality of categories; and
based on the determined output value from the classification of the stored value digital resource:
allowing a use of the stored value digital resource by the first user device by outputting a redemption allowance action to the first user device through a user interface (UI) for the redemption request, or
disallowing the use of the stored value digital resource by the first user device by restricting access to the stored value through the UI for the redemption request
Claim 8 of the ‘324 patent differs since claim 8 of the ‘324 patent recites additional claim limitations including “wherein the establisher account that was used by the establisher for the creation of the stored value digital resource, wherein the purchase account information associated with the establisher account corresponds to a first user account of an electronic transaction service provider, and wherein the purchase account information includes one or more of a total amount of purchase for one or more past transactions in a transaction history of the first user account, a quantity of gift cards purchased by the first user account, a quantity of times a gift card code has been accessed by the first user account, a quantity of digital gift cards sent to a same receiver by the first user account, an indication whether the first user account has a negative balance or has had a past negative balance, a quantity of times that an IP address was associated with a transaction used by the first user account to purchase the stored value digital resource, an indication whether the first user account has been dormant for a period of time, a quantity of different IP addresses used to access the first user account, an indication whether the IP address used in the transaction to purchase the stored value digital resource matches a primary country of the first user account, an indication whether the first user account has any account restrictions by the electronic transaction service provider, or an indication whether the first user account has an indication of an account takeover, and wherein the purchase account information further comprises information regarding the first user account has any reversed transactions after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource”. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 14 of the ‘324 patent by removing the limitations since the claims of the present application and the claim recited in the ‘324 patent actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Also, claim 8 of the ‘324 patent differs since it fails to recite redirecting the first UI to one of a second UI or a third UI based on the request. Choudhuri discloses redirecting the first UI to one of a second UI or a third UI based on the request to allow or disallow the request (Fig. 8, item 880, Fig. 11, steps 1132/1136/1122/1128, Fig. 13, item 1310; ¶¶139, 168). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of the ’324 patent to incorporate the teachings of multi-state filtering for fraud detection, as disclosed in Choudhuri, to reduce the inconvenience to customers and the costs to the financial institution (Choudhuri : ¶170). Additionally, note, that the limitations, “wherein the second UI facilitates redeeming the stored digital value responsive to the request, and wherein the third UI facilitates preventing access to the stored digital value responsive to the request” recite intended use language. The recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention does not serve to differentiate the claim from the prior art. MPEP § 2103 I C states that language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. An example of such language includes statements of intended use or field of use (MPEP §2103 I C).
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instance case, claims 1-8 are directed to a system (i.e., product), claims 9-16 are directed to a method (i.e. process), and claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claim 2
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of processing gift card redemption with fraud assessment. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, from a first user device of a first user via an electronically presented user interface (UI) element in a first UI presented by the system, a request to claim a stored value digital resource using a unique digital identifier, wherein the request is received with a first device identifier of the first user device based on a navigation event associated with the electronically presented UI element;
determining online data associated with at least one of the first device identifier or a first account claiming the stored value digital resource based on the first device identifier, wherein the online data is associated with whether the at least one of the first device identifier or the first account has an indication for fraud;
querying, using the unique digital identifier, a database for account information corresponding to a second account of a second user that established the stored valued digital resource, wherein the account information comprises first information indicating a time of a creation of the stored value digital resource using the second account, and wherein the account information further comprises second information indicating whether the second account has a reversed transaction after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource;
executing a machine learning engine based on data for a plurality of classification features extracted from at least a portion of the online data and the account information corresponding to the second account;
classifying, based on one or more outputs from executing the machine learning engine, whether the request is a fraudulent request and whether the creation was a fraudulent creation; and
based on the classifying:
allowing the first account to claim the stored value digital resource by transmitting data to the first user device that enables the first user device to claim the stored value digital resource through a second UI presented by the system, or
disallowing the first account from claiming the stored value digital resource by restricting an access to the stored value digital resource through a third UI presented by the system.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the claim recites steps of receiving gift card redemption request, verifying gift card for redemption with fraud checking, which is a commercial or legal interactions. Additionally, the claim recites “determining online data…” “querying…account information…” “executing…based on data for a plurality of classification features…” “classifying, based on one or more outputs…based on the classifying…allowing…to claim …disallowing…from claiming…” which is also an abstract idea, grouped within the “Mental Process” because the steps involve data observation, analysis and evaluation, which can be performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . The claim is abstract ideas because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a processor;” “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions,” “a first user device,” “a database,” “a machine learning engine,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Also, the additional elements, “an electronically presented user interface (UI) element in a first UI presented by the system,” “a second UI presented by the system,” and “a third UI presented by the system” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of user interface and does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recite (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of processing gift card redemption with fraud assessment. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving a unique digital identifier for a stored value digital resource with a request to use the stored value digital resources by a first user via first user interface (UI) provided by a computer system that enables using at least the stored value digital resource, wherein the first UI is presented based on a navigation event via a link selection from the first UI;
determining whether the first user has an indication of fraud;
determining a time of a creation of the stored value digital resource by a second user using a funding instrument and whether the funding instrument is associated with a reversed transaction after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource;
executing a machine learning engine based on a plurality of classification features associated with whether the first user has an indication of fraud or whether the funding instrument is associated with a reversed transaction;
classifying, based on one or more outputs from executing the machine learning engine, whether the stored value digital resource was fraudulently created or the first user is acting fraudulently by claiming the stored value digital resource; and
executing an action to permit or deny using the stored value digital resource by the first user via a second UI of the computer system based on the classifying.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the claim recites steps of receiving gift card redemption request, verifying gift card for redemption with fraud checking, which is a commercial or legal interactions. Additionally, the claim recites “determining whether the first user…” “determining a time…” “executing…based on data for a plurality of classification features…” “classifying, based on one or more outputs…based on the classifying…allowing…to claim …” is also an abstract idea, grouped within the “Mental Process” because the steps involve data observation, analysis and evaluation, which can be performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . The claim is abstract ideas because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a computer system,” and “a machine learning engine,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Moreover, because claim 9 does not recite any element(s) performing the claimed steps of “receiving,” “determining,” “determining,” “executing,” “classifying,” executing,” these additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Also, the additional elements “a first user interface (UI),” “wherein the first UI is presented based on a navigation event via a link selection from the first UI,” “a second UI” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of user interface and does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 17
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of processing gift card redemption with fraud assessment. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
detecting an indication of a request to use a stored digital value by a first user device of a first user via a user interface (UI) element electronically presented in a first UI of an application of an online transaction processor that facilitates uses of stored digital values, wherein the UI element is associated with a navigation link to the application, and wherein the indication is associated with a selection of the navigation link via the UI element that causes the first user device to be directed to the first UI in the application;
determining fraud data associated with the first user based on a first user device identifier of the first user device;
determining historical data associated with the stored digital value that indicates a time of a creation of the stored digital value and whether an account of a second user that created the stored digital value has a reversed transaction at or after the time of the creation of the stored digital value;
processing the fraud data and the historical data using a machine learning engine,
wherein the processing comprises:
determining data for input features of the machine learning engine based on the fraud data and the historical data,
executing the machine learning engine based on the data, the input features, and a machine learning process of the machine learning engine, and
outputting a fraud assessment based on the executing; and
based on the fraud assessment, redirecting the first UI to one of a second UI or a third UI based on the request, wherein the second UI facilitates redeeming the stored digital value responsive to the request, and wherein the third UI facilitates preventing access to the stored digital value responsive to the request.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites a commercial or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the claim recites steps of receiving gift card redemption request, verifying gift card for redemption with fraud checking, which is a commercial or legal interactions. Additionally, the claim recites “determining fraud data…” “determining historical data…” “processing the fraud data and the historical data…” “determining data…” “outputting a fraud assessment…” which is also an abstract idea, grouped within the “Mental Process” because the steps involve data observation, analysis and evaluation, which can be performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) . The claim is abstract ideas because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “[a] non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions,” “a processor;” “a computer system,” “a first user device,” “a machine learning engine,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Also, the additional elements, “a user interface (UI) element electronically presented in a first UI of an application of an online transaction processor,” “wherein the UI element is associated with a navigation link to the application,” “the navigation link via the UI element that causes the first user device to be directed to the first UI in the application,” “…redirecting the first UI to one of a second UI or a third UI…” “the second UI facilitates …” “the third UI facilitates …” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of user interface and does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 3-8, 10-16, 18-21
Claim 3 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
querying, using the first device identifier, the database for account information corresponding to the first account claiming the stored value digital resource,
wherein the data for the plurality of classification features is further extracted from at least a portion of the account information corresponding to the first account.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract ideas of processing gift card redemption with fraud assessment. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
executing an action to move the stored value digital resource to an account or secure the unique digital identifier from a further use by the first user device or the first account based on the classifying.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract ideas of processing gift card redemption with fraud assessment. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
allowing the first user to claim the stored value digital resource using an account; or
disallowing the first user from claiming the stored value digital resource and reporting one of the first user or the unique digital identifier as fraudulent.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract ideas of processing gift card redemption with fraud assessment. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
determining account information for an account used by the first user,
wherein the determining whether the first user has the indication of fraud is based on the account information.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract ideas of processing gift card redemption with fraud assessment. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the executing the action comprises moving the stored value digital resource to an account of one of the first user or the second user.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract ideas of processing gift card redemption with fraud assessment. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
executing an action to move the stored value digital resource to one or more accounts based on the fraud assessment.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract ideas of processing gift card redemption with fraud assessment. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 21 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the executing the machine learning engine comprises classifying the input features for the fraud assessment based on the machine learning process.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract ideas of processing gift card redemption with fraud assessment. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites characteristics of the account information of at least one of the first account or the second account. Claim 5 recites additional details of the stored value digital resource. Claim 6 recites characteristics of the online data. Claim 8 recites additional details of the machine learning engine. Claim 10 recites additional details of the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource. Claim 13 recites characteristics of the plurality of classification features. Claim 14 recites further details of the account information. Claim 15 recites further details of determination of user fraud indication. Claim 18 recites further details of the fraud data. Claim 19 recites characteristics of the historical data. Therefore, the claims further recite the abstract idea of processing gift card redemption with fraud assessment. The claims do not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements previously discussed. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 2-16 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “classifying, based on one or more outputs from executing the machine learning engine, whether the request is a fraudulent request and whether the creation was a fraudulent creation…” Even though the claim language appears in the claim portion of applicant’s disclosure, paragraph [0074] of the specification (US 2025/0225523A1) discloses “[t]he machine learning and/or artificial intelligence portion of the fraud assessment engine may be trained using one or more machine learning algorithms, such as gradient boosting… The output values may further correspond to another input feature, where a separate input variable assigned in the target data set may determine the resulting output value”, and paragraph [0075] of the specification discloses “…The transaction processor may implement a gradient boosting algorithm, and may initially label fraud transaction data for digital gift card creation and/or redemption (e.g., fraudulent digital gift cards that resulted in loss).” The specification describes determination whether the request is a fraudulent request and whether the creation was a fraudulent creation for fraud assessment with the machine learning engine. However, the specification does not disclose details of the claimed steps of “classifying.” Therefore, the claim is unclear because it is not in line with the specification. Claim 9 is also rejected on the same basis as claim 9 recites similar language.
Claims 3-8 are also rejected as each depends upon claim 2. Claims 10-16 are also rejected as each depends upon claim 9.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metnick et al. (US 2022/0309511A1 (“Metnick”)) in view of Kramme et al. (US 11,170,375B1 (“Kramme”)) in further view of McNamara et al. (US 9,349,123B1 (“McNamara”)).
Claims 2, 9 and 17:
Per Claim 2: Metnick discloses a system comprising: (Fig. 2)
a processor; and (Fig. 4, item 62; ¶¶96-97, 523)
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: (Fig. 4, item 66; ¶¶96-97, 524)
receiving, from a first user device of a first user (Fig. 6A, item 16) via… a first UI presented by the system (Fig. 6A, item 16, Fig. 13, items 582-588; ¶¶89-91, 96, 107), a request to claim a stored value digital resource using a unique digital identifier (Fig. 17B, item 812, Fig. 13, items 588/590; ¶¶83 (i.e. ‘…stored value digital resource (‘exchange item…gift card’), 94, 127 (i.e. ‘…unique digital identifier (‘EI serial number’)…), 137, 239, 372), wherein the request is received with a first device identifier of the first user device based on a navigation event associated with the [UI]… (¶¶85, 89, 104, 127 (i.e. ‘…first device identifier (‘buyer user device information…’), 128, 137, 202)
determining online data associated with at least one of the first device identifier or a first account claiming the stored value digital resource based on the first device identifier (Fig. 18E, item 934; ¶¶104, 128, 137, 225, 452), wherein the online data is associated with whether the at least one of the first device identifier or the first account has an indication for fraud; (Fig. 18E, item 934; ¶¶452)
querying, using the unique digital identifier, a database for account information corresponding to a second account of a second user that established the stored valued digital resource (Fig. 6A, items 200/20, Fig. 6C, items 18/20, Fig. 18C, items 20/934/932/930, Fig. 18D, items 936/320, Fig. 18H/18N; ¶¶80, 122, 147, 167, 291, 321, 355-356), wherein the account information comprises first information indicating a time of a creation of the stored value digital resource using the second account (Fig. 6A, Fig. 23C, Fig. 16, item 724,Fig. 23C, Fig. 26A; ¶¶192-193, 220, 223, 230-233), and wherein the account information further comprises second information indicating whether the second account has a reversed transaction after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource (Fig. 6A, Fig. 23C, Fig. 16, item 724, Fig. 26A; ¶¶192-193, 220, 223, 230-233);
executing a [fraud analysis module] based on data for a plurality of classification features extracted from at least a portion of the online data and the account information corresponding to the second account; (Fig. 16, Fig. 26A, items 18/2610, Fig. 26B; ¶¶220, 223, 225, 452-455, 458-460, 515)
classifying, based on one or more outputs from executing the [fraud analysis module], whether the request is a fraudulent request and whether the creation was a fraudulent creation; and based on the classifying: (Fig. 26B, item 2610-1; ¶¶452-455, 458-460, 515)
allowing the first account to claim the stored value digital resource by transmitting data to the first user device that enables the first user device to claim the stored value digital resource through a second UI presented by the system, or (Fig. 26B, item 2610-1; ¶¶458-460)
disallowing the first account from claiming the stored value digital resource by restricting an access to the stored value digital resource through a third UI presented by the system. (Fig. 26B, item 2610-1; ¶¶458-460, 467)
Metnick discloses one or more functions associated with the methods and/or processes described herein can be implemented via a processing module that operates via the non-human "artificial" intelligence (AI) of a machine (¶¶515). However, Metnick does not explicitly disclose a machine learning engine with use of classification features of transaction data.
Kramme discloses executing a machine learning engine for fraud detection (Fig. 2; 6:3-21, 9:8-39, 11:52-12:8, 12:40-43, 14:6-26) with use of classification features of the transaction data for fraud detection (6:1-19, 11:50-12:6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Metnick to incorporate the teachings of use of a machine learning for fraud detection, as disclosed in Kramme, for reducing financial fraud using machine learning (Kramme: 1:8-9) so a significant amount of time may be saved by removing the need for manual investigation (Kramme: 6:29-32).
Metnick discloses receiving from a first user device via a user interface presented by the system (¶¶89-91, 96, 107) and the request being received based on navigation event associated with the UI (¶¶202). Metnick does not explicitly disclose user interface (UI) element in a UI presented by the system, nor does Metnick explicitly disclose electronically presented UI element associated with a navigation event.
McNamara discloses an electronically presented user interface (UI) element in a UI (Fig. 1; 3:51-67, 5:52-60) and a navigation event associated with the electronically presented UI element. (Fig. 1; 3:51-67, 5:52-60)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Metnick in view of Kramme to incorporate the teachings of use of application interactions via navigation event associated with user interface elements, as disclosed in McNamara, for facilitating more efficient access to data (McNamara: 6:17-18).
Furthermore, the expressions of "…..an electronically presented user interface (UI) element in a first UI presented by the system…”, “…classification features extracted from at least a portion of the online data and the account information…”, “a second UI presented by the system,” “a third UI presented by the system” do not move to distinguish over prior art as the expression does not affect the positively recited steps nor does the expression affect the claimed structures.
Additionally, note, that the limitations, “…the first user device to claim the stored value digital resource…”, recite intended use language. The recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention does not serve to differentiate the claim from the prior art. MPEP § 2103 I C states that language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. An example of such language includes statements of intended use or field of use (MPEP §2103 I C).
Per Claim 3, Metnick in view of Kramme and McNamara discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
querying, using the first device identifier, the database for account information corresponding to the first account claiming the stored value digital resource, (Fig. 6A, items 208/20, Fig. 6C, items 18/20, Fig. 18C, items 20/934/932/930, Fig. 18F, items 936/320, Fig. 18H/18N; ¶¶80, 122, 147, 167, 291, 321, 355-356)
wherein the data for the plurality of classification features is further extracted from at least a portion of the account information corresponding to the first account. (Fig. 16, Fig. 26A, items 18/2610; ¶¶211, 220, 223, 452-454, 458-460, 515)
Furthermore, the expressions of wherein the data for the plurality of classification features is further extracted from at least a portion of the account information corresponding to the first account do not move to distinguish over prior art as the expression does not affect the positively recited steps nor does the expression affect the claimed structures.
Per Claim 4, Metnick in view of Kramme and McNamara discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
wherein the account information of at least one of the first account or the second account includes at least one of one or more past IP addresses used by the first account or the second account, one or more gift cards associated with the first account or the second account, or one or more geo-locations associated with the first account or the second account. (¶¶85, 128, 134)
Per Claim 5, Metnick in view of Kramme and McNamara discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
wherein the stored value digital resource is associated with a gift card having a card recipient (Fig. 18D; ¶297), and wherein the plurality of classification features in at least one feature associated with whether the card recipient matches an account identifier associated with the account information corresponding to the second account. (Fig. 18D, Fig. 26B; ¶¶264, 293-295, 297)
Per Claim 6, Metnick in view of Kramme and McNamara discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
wherein the online data comprises at least one of a session IP address associated with a current session for the first user device with the first UI, a browser type and a browser version of a web browser used for the current session, or a browser input to the web browser. (Fig. 6C; ¶¶137)
Per Claim 7, Metnick in view of Kramme and McNamara discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
executing an action to move the stored value digital resource to an account or secure the unique digital identifier from a further use by the first user device or the first account based on the classifying. (Fig. 16; ¶¶108, 208)
Per Claim 8, Metnick in view of Kramme and McNamara discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
wherein the [fraud analysis module] comprises a plurality of decision trees (¶515), and wherein the plurality of decision trees are trained using training data associated with at least one of prior claims to previous stored value digital resources or prior uses of the previous stored value digital resources during transaction processing. (¶515)
Kramme discloses executing a machine learning engine for fraud detection (Fig. 2; 6:3-21, 9:8-39, 11:52-12:8, 12:40-43, 14:6-26)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Metnick in view of Kramme and McNamara to incorporate the teachings of use of a machine learning for fraud detection, as disclosed in Kramme, for reducing financial fraud using machine learning (Kramme: 1:8-9) so a significant amount of time may be saved by removing the need for manual investigation (Kramme: 6:29-32).
Furthermore, the expressions of “wherein the plurality of decision trees are trained using training data associated with at least one of prior claims to previous stored value digital resources or prior uses of the previous stored value digital resources during transaction processing” do not move to distinguish over prior art as the expression does not affect the positively recited steps nor does the expression affect the claimed structures.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metnick in view of Kramme in further view of Cox et al. (US 9,886,175B1 (“Cox”)).
Per Claim 9, Metnick discloses a method comprising:
receiving a unique digital identifier for a stored value digital resource with a request to use the stored value digital resources by a first user via first user interface (UI) provided by a computer system that enables using at least the stored value digital resource, wherein the first UI is presented based on a navigation event via… the first UI; (Fig. 2, Fig. 6A, Fig. 13, items 588/590; ¶¶83, 91, 186-187, 372)
determining whether the first user has an indication of fraud; (Fig. 6A, Fig. 16, item 740; ¶¶211, 220, 223)
determining a time of a creation of the stored value digital resource by a second user using a funding instrument (Fig. 6A, Fig. 18E, Fig. 23C; ¶¶230-233) and whether the funding instrument is associated with a reversed transaction after the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource; (Fig. 7/8, Fig. 16, item 724, Fig. 26A; ¶¶192-193, 220, 223)
executing a [fraud analysis module] based on [data] associated with whether the first user has an indication (¶¶211, 220, 223) of fraud or whether the funding instrument is associated with a reversed transaction; (¶¶192-193, 220, 223)
classifying, based on one or more outputs from executing the [fraud analysis module], whether the stored value digital resource was fraudulently created or the first user is acting fraudulently by claiming the stored value digital resource; and (Fig. 26B, item 2610-1; ¶¶452-454, 458-460)
executing an action to permit or deny using the stored value digital resource by the first user via a second UI of the computer system based on the classifying. (Fig. 26B, item 2610-1; ¶¶108, 458-460)
Metnick discloses one or more functions associated with the methods and/or processes described herein can be implemented via a processing module that operates via the non-human "artificial" intelligence (AI) of a machine (¶¶515). However, Metnick does not explicitly disclose a machine learning engine with use of classification features of transaction data.
Kramme discloses executing a machine learning engine for fraud detection (Fig. 2; 6:3-21, 9:8-39, 11:52-12:8, 12:40-43, 14:6-26) with use of classification features of the transaction data for fraud detection (6:1-19, 11:50-12:6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Metnick to incorporate the teachings of use of a machine learning engine with transaction classification for fraud detection, as disclosed in Kramme, for reducing financial fraud using machine learning (Kramme: 1:8-9) so a significant amount of time may be saved by removing the need for manual investigation (Kramme: 6:29-32).
Metnick discloses the UI being presented based on a navigation event from the UI (¶¶83, 91, 186-187, 372). Metnick does not explicitly disclose a link associated with a navigation event for presentation of the UI.
Cox discloses a navigation event via a link selection from the UI for presentation the UI. (13:39-44)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Metnick in view of Kramme to incorporate the teachings of presentation of user interface through navigation event and link selection, as disclosed in Cox, for simplifying the GUI to make it easier for the user (Cox: 23:3-4).
Furthermore, the expressions of “…first user interface (UI) provided by a computer system…”, “wherein the first UI is presented based on a navigation event via a link selection from the first UI;” do not move to distinguish over prior art as the expression does not affect the positively recited steps nor does the expression affect the claimed structures.
Additionally, note, that the limitations, “…an action to permit or deny using the stored value digital resource by the first user via a second UI of the computer system…”, recite intended use language. The recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention does not serve to differentiate the claim from the prior art. MPEP § 2103 I C states that language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. An example of such language includes statements of intended use or field of use (MPEP §2103 I C).
Per Claim 10, Metnick in view of Kramme and Cox discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
wherein the time of the creation of the stored value digital resource is determined based on account information for one of the funding instrument or an account associated with the second user. (Fig. 6A, Fig. 23C, Fig. 16, item 724,Fig. 23C, Fig. 26A; ¶¶192-193, 220, 223, 230-233)
Per Claim 11, Metnick in view of Kramme and Cox discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
allowing the first user to claim the stored value digital resource using an account (Fig. 26B, item 2610-1; ¶¶458-460); or disallowing the first user from claiming the stored value digital resource and reporting one of the first user or the unique digital identifier as fraudulent. (Fig. 26B, item 2610-1; ¶¶458-460, 467)
Per Claim 12, Metnick in view of Kramme and Cox discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
determining account information for an account used by the first user, (Fig. 13, items 554-556; ¶¶179)
wherein the determining whether the first user has the indication of fraud is based on the account information. (Fig. 13, items 554-556; ¶¶179)
Per Claim 13, Metnick in view of Kramme and Cox discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
wherein the account information includes at least one of one or more past IP addresses used by the account, one or more gift cards associated with the account, or one or more geo-locations associated with the account. (¶¶85, 128, 134)
Per Claim 14, Metnick in view of Kramme and Cox discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
wherein at least one of the plurality of classification features are associated with gift card redemptions of gift cards corresponding to stored value digital resources. (Fig. 26D; ¶¶465)
Per Claim 15, Metnick in view of Kramme and Cox discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
wherein the determining whether the first user has an indication of fraud is based on at least one of a session IP address, browser information, or a browser input associated with a user device of the first user used to access the first UL. (Fig. 6C; ¶¶137)
Per Claim 16, Metnick in view of Kramme and Cox discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
wherein the executing the action comprises moving the stored value digital resource to an account of one of the first user or the second user. (Fig. 16; ¶¶108, 208)
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metnick in view of Kramme in further view of Cox and Choudhuri et al. (US 2013/0024375 (“Choudhuri”)).
Per Claim 17, Metnick discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computer system, cause the processor of the computer system to perform operations comprising (Fig. 4; ¶¶96-97, 524)
detecting an indication of a request to use a stored digital value by a first user device of a first user via…a first UI of an application of an online transaction processor that facilitates uses of stored digital values (Fig. 2, item 16, Fig. 6A, item 16, Fig. 13, items 582-588; ¶¶83, 91, 89-91, 127, 184-187, 372), wherein the UI… is associated with a navigation…to the application (¶¶85, 89, 104, 128, 202), and wherein the indication is associated with a selection of the navigation…via the UI…that causes the first user device to be directed to the first UI in the application; (¶¶85, 89, 104, 128, 202)
determining fraud data associated with the first user based on a first user device identifier of the first user device; (Fig. 18E, item 934; ¶¶128, 211, 220, 223)
determining historical data associated with the stored digital value that indicates a time of a creation of the stored digital value and whether an account of a second user that created the stored digital value has a reversed transaction at or after the time of the creation of the stored digital value; (Fig. 18E, item 934, Fig. 23C; ¶¶128, 167, 192-193, 220, 223, 297)
processing the fraud data and the historical data using a [fraud analysis module], wherein the processing comprises: (Fig. 26B, item 2610-1; ¶¶452-454, 458-460)
determining data for input features of the [fraud analysis module] based on the fraud data and the historical data, (Fig. 26B, item 2610-1; ¶¶452-454, 458-460)
executing the [fraud analysis module] based on the data, the input features, and a machine learning process of the [fraud analysis module], and (Fig. 16, Fig. 26A, items 18/2610; ¶¶211, 220, 223, 452-454, 458-460, 515)
outputting a fraud assessment based on the executing; and (Fig. 26B, item 2610-1; ¶¶452-454, 458-460, 462) …
Metnick discloses one or more functions associated with the methods and/or processes described herein can be implemented via a processing module that operates via the non-human "artificial" intelligence (AI) of a machine (¶¶515). However, Metnick does not explicitly disclose a machine learning engine.
Kramme discloses executing a machine learning engine for fraud detection (Fig. 2; 6:1-21, 9:8-39, 11:52-12:8, 12:40-43, 14:6-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Metnick to incorporate the teachings of use of a machine learning engine for fraud detection, as disclosed in Kramme, for reducing financial fraud using machine learning (Kramme: 1:8-9) so a significant amount of time may be saved by removing the need for manual investigation (Kramme: 6:29-32).
Metnick discloses detection of an indication of a request to use a stored digital value by a first user device of a first user via a user interface (UI) of an application of an online transaction processor (¶¶83, 91, 89-91, 127, 184-187, 372). Metnick does not explicitly disclose a UI element and a navigation link for selection of the indication for interaction with application.
Cox discloses selection for interaction with application via a navigation link with the UI element. (13:39-44)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Metnick in view of Kramme to incorporate the teachings of interaction with application via a navigation link with the UI element, as disclosed in Cox, for simplifying the GUI to make it easier for the user (Cox: 23:3-4).
Metnick does not disclose:
based on the fraud assessment, redirecting the first UI to one of a second UI or a third UI based on the request, wherein the second UI facilitates redeeming the stored digital value responsive to the request, and wherein the third UI facilitates preventing access to the stored digital value responsive to the request.
Choudhuri discloses:
based on the fraud assessment, redirecting the first UI to one of a second UI or a third UI based on the request, wherein the second UI facilitates redeeming the stored digital value responsive to the request, and wherein the third UI facilitates preventing access to the stored digital value responsive to the request. (Fig. 8, item 880, Fig. 11, steps 1132/1136/1122/1128, Fig. 13, item 1310; ¶¶139, 168)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Metnick in view of Kramme and Cox to incorporate the teachings of multi-state filtering for fraud detection, as disclosed in Choudhuri, to reduce the inconvenience to customers and the costs to the financial institution (Choudhuri : ¶170).
Additionally, note, that the limitations, “wherein the second UI facilitates redeeming the stored digital value responsive to the request, and wherein the third UI facilitates preventing access to the stored digital value responsive to the request” recite intended use language. The recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention does not serve to differentiate the claim from the prior art. MPEP § 2103 I C states that language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. An example of such language includes statements of intended use or field of use (MPEP §2103 I C).
Per Claim 18, Metnick in view of Kramme, Cox and Choudhuri discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
wherein the fraud data is associated with whether an account of the first user has been used for fraud sine the time of the creation of the stored digital value. (Fig. 26C; ¶¶461-462)
Per Claim 19, Metnick in view of Kramme, Cox and Choudhuri discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
executing an action to move the stored value digital resource to one or more accounts based on the fraud assessment. (Fig. 16; ¶¶108, 208)
Per Claim 20, Metnick in view of Kramme, Cox and Choudhuri discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
wherein the historical data comprises account data for the account of the second user. (Fig. 18D/18E, item 934, Fig. 23C; ¶¶164, 297)
Per Claim 21, Metnick in view of Kramme, Cox and Choudhuri discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Furthermore,
Metnick discloses:
wherein the executing the [fraud analysis module] comprises classifying the input features for the fraud assessment based on the machine learning process. (Fig. 26B, item 2610-1; ¶¶452-454, 458-460)
Kramme discloses executing a machine learning engine for fraud detection (Fig. 2; 6:3-21, 9:8-39, 11:52-12:8, 12:40-43, 14:6-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Metnick in view of Kramme, Cox and Choudhuri to incorporate the teachings of use of a machine learning for fraud detection, as disclosed in Kramme, for reducing financial fraud using machine learning (Kramme: 1:8-9) so a significant amount of time may be saved by removing the need for manual investigation (Kramme: 6:29-32).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Adjaoute, Akli (US 2015/0073981A1) teaches transaction fraud detection using machine learning with classifiers and smart agents.
ARORA (US 2019/0130387A1) teaches secure usage of a gift card via blockchain.
Paresh (US 2017/0161781A1) teaches providing a digital gift card.
Yankovich (US 2019/0026726A1) teaches gift card conversion and digital wallet.
Scipioni (US 9,015,066B2) teaches digital wallet loading of gift cards.
Isaacson (US 2018/0165675A1) teaches managing gift cards.
Turgeman (US 2016/0307201A1) teaches contextual mapping of web-pages and generation of fraud relatedness score-values.
Danninger (US 2006/0004853A1) teaches a method to render service data utilizing triggering link.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4 PM 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, John W Hayes can be reached on (571)272-6708. 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.
/CHENYUH KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697