Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were pending. Claims 1-8 and 11-16 are amended. Claims 9, 10 and 17-20 are canceled. Claims 21-26 are new. Claims 1-8, 11-16 and 21-26 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-26 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 21 practices a materially different process than claims 1 and 11 and is written from the perspective of the backend systems. The frontend elements and operations of claims 1 and 11 could interact with a completely different backend than that of claim 21 which does not use the specific structures of claim 21 and the backend of claim 21 does not require the NFC/user device steps of claims 1 and 11.
Inventions I (claims 1 and 11) and II (claim 21) are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, mode of operation, function or effect as discussed above. The inventions do not overlap in scope since claim 21 is directed to a backend system and does not require certain elements and functions of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Finally, the inventions are not obvious variants since each is capable of use with materially different frontend and backend systems and operations. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claims 8 and 18 are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The 112 rejections of claims 2, 4-6, 12 and 14-16 are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The 103 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues per the submitted declaration:
1 – Data security is an improvement to computer functionality (see points 22-26
and 35) and that the elements are not generic as they require computer network communications, server-side processing and storing mapping data.
The Office asserts that providing data security is a business objective and not an improvement to the computer itself, a particular technology or technical field. The asserted technical steps rely on generic computer functions like storing, sending and processing data.
2 – The claims recite a unique data-handling arrangement (See points 27, 28 and 31).
The Office asserts that complexity does not necessarily confer a technical improvement. The claims merely reflect a process of splitting a charge among several providers and presenting a single approval code which is an abstract idea of manipulating data. Additionally, the claims do not confer “simplified” multiple account transactions. It is unclear how multiple account transactions are “simplified” by the present invention and what “simplified” means in terms of a technical improvement. Iannacci US 20020062249 A1 (0137), for example discloses providing a merchant with a single authorization code from multiple authorization codes of multiple payment providers. The present invention does not appear to improve upon Iannnacci. Changing transaction data-flow…is not in and of itself a technical improvement. The ordered combination itself may not be disclosed by one or more references but that fact alone does not make the invention a technical improvement.
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 1-8 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
A transaction processing method comprising:
a user device, comprising a proxy card storing a proxy identifier that is associated with a plurality of monetary sources, for:
establishing a connection with a point of service (POS) device via a Near Field Communication (NFC) link;
determining that the POS device requests a money transfer for a transaction amount;
communicating, to the POS device, the proxy identifier supporting an adaptive selection of one or more of the plurality of monetary sources for enacting the money transfer without revealing any of the plurality of monetary sources; and receiving from the POS device a proxy authorization code indicating approval of the money transfer without revealing one or more monetary sources that serviced the money transfer.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the approval of the money transfer including the proxy authorization code is generated by a Multi-Source Processing System (MSPS) in communication with the POS device and with the plurality of monetary sources.
3. The method of claim 1,wherein the MSPS: receives the proxy identifier and an indication of the transaction amount; retrieves information regarding the plurality of monetary sources based on the proxy identifier; retrieves transaction rules corresponding to the proxy identifier; allocates the transaction amount among a plurality of selected monetary sources; receives authorization information from the plurality of selected monetary sources; generates the proxy authorization code based upon the authorization information from the plurality of selected monetary sources; and transmits the proxy authorization code.
4/12. The method/system of claim 1/11, wherein the adaptive selection comprises dividing a total amount of the transaction amount into a first portion and a second portion, assigning the first portion to a first of the plurality of monetary sources, and assigning the second portion to a second of the plurality of monetary sources.
5/13. The method/system of claim 1/11, wherein the adaptive selection comprises choosing a first of the plurality of monetary sources, and, upon failing to receive authorization data from the first of the plurality of monetary sources, choosing a second of the plurality of monetary sources.
6/15. The method/system of claim 1/11, wherein the adaptive selection is based on a transaction context characteristic associated with the money transfer.
7/14. The method/system of claim 1/11, wherein the adaptive selection conforms to the transaction rules.
8/16. The method/system of claim 1/11, wherein, in response to receiving an indication that the proxy identifier has been compromised, updating a mapping associated with the proxy identifier to disable use of the proxy identifier while maintaining accounts of a customer with the plurality of monetary sources.
11. A transaction processing system supporting a point of service device and a customer, the transaction processing system comprising:
a proxy card of the customer, the proxy card configured to:
connect with the point of service device via a Near Field Communication (NFC) link;
authorize an adaptive selection-based money transfer via the point of service device using a proxy identifier of the customer without revealing any of a plurality of payment providers of the customer;
communicate, to the point of service device, authorization information, the authorization information including proxy data associated with the customer without revealing any of a plurality of payment providers of the customer, the proxy data supporting an adaptive selection of one or more of the plurality of payment providers for enacting the money transfer; and
receive a single proxy approval of the money transfer without revealing any of from the one or more of the plurality of payment providers.
The underlined limitations of claim 1 represent certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices including mitigating risk because the invention is directed to concealing account information during money transfer operations at a retailer. Claim 11 is similarly rejected.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely. These elements serve to communicate information about the user accounts used for the transaction and communicating with the payment providers. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely comprise the abstract idea and the words “apply it”, or the like.
The dependent claims 2-7 use a generic computer to apply business rules without any recitation of how the computer itself is improved to perform the process and thus merely narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 8 again applies rules to the use of the proxy identifier and associated accounts but fails to recite how the computer elements are improved or modified to perform these functions.
As a whole and in combination, the claims comprise the abstract idea with the words “apply it”, or the like and are patent-ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 11 and 16 comprise limitations not supported in the specification including:
A proxy card for: receiving from the POS device a proxy authorization code. 0022 discloses that the MSPS communicates the authorization code to the MSPS. Several portions of the specification discloses communications between the MSPS and the POS device but do not disclose the POS device communicating that information to the proxy card.
A proxy card to: authorize an adaptive selection based money transfer via the point of service device. The specification does not disclose the proxy card performing any authorizations.
A proxy card to: receive a single proxy approval. The specification discloses authorization codes/approvals transmitted between the MPSP and the POS device but these transmittals do not include the proxy card receiving these approvals from the POS device.
A proxy card to: receive an indication that the proxy card has been compromised…The specification does not disclose the proxy card receiving such an indication. 0055 and 0057 recite the deactivation process performed by the MSPS but do not indicate the proxy cards involvement in the communication.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights