Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 15, 16, 18-28 and 31-37 are pending.
The Office notes that claim 29 is canceled but is not noted as such on the applicant’s reply.
Response to Arguments
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The 112 rejection of claims 17 and 30 is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive. The Office notes that the claim amendments merely add computerized elements such as an application and dialog boxes, and specifies the format of information entered. These elements alone merely supplement the additional elements previously indicated as insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept.
Applicant argues the claims recite a practical application as they implement a specific computer-based technique for validating target account data before payment initiation.
The Office does not recognize “implementing a specific computer-based technique” as a consideration for eligibility. The eligibility considerations include improvements to the computer itself, the technology or technical field, applying the judicial exception with a particular machine, applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing and applying or using the judicial exception in some other use meaningful way beyond generally linking the of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Applicant’s argument does not apply to any of the above considerations.
Applicant argues the Office considers the additional limitations individually and not as a whole per Office guidance. Viewed as a whole, the elements provide a specific computer-implemented technique for validating target account data before payment initiation.
The Office asserts that there is no evidence that the claimed elements were not considered as a whole. Additionally, the Office’s response to the Step 2A argument is repeated here.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an endpoint device that receives and presents data, in claims 15 and 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive. See modified rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18-28 and 31-37 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 system for validating target account data, the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the stored instructions to:
generate an application that enables payment initiation on an endpoint device;
access the application to render one or more user interface elements for receiving target account data, wherein the one or more user interface elements include a first dialog box and a second dialog box
receive, through the endpoint device, a first input entered into the first dialog box, the first input comprising a number associated with the target account data;
receive, through the endpoint device, a second input entered into the second dialog box, the second input comprising a text associated with the target account data;
transmit the first input and the second input to a server;
automatically perform a lookup associated with the first input and the second input in the server;
receive a result of the lookup from the server;
transform the result of the lookup using machine learning into a transformed result; and
present the transformed result on the application of the endpoint device.
The underlined portion of the claims represent certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial interactions, business relations as the claims are directed to determining information associated with target account data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim adds the words "apply it", or the like, to the abstract idea. The claims include a system for performing the abstract idea including a processor, a platform, an endpoint device, a server and machine learning, all of which are generically recited such that they cannot be considered particular machines, effect a transformation (other than data), reflect an improvement in the computer or technology or apply the abstract idea in some other meaningful way. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the reasons cited above.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and in combination and as a whole, comprise the abstract idea and the words “apply it”, the like.
Claims 28 and its dependents are similarly rejected. Claims 16-17 and 26-27 describe the lookup process, further narrowing the abstract idea. Claim 16 adds the words “apply it” by the use of fuzzy logic in the lookup process. Claims 18-20 and 22-25 describe the results of the lookup and claim 21 describes the method of presenting the result, both narrowing the abstract idea. Claims 29-33 are similarly rejected. Claims 34 and 35 uses an activatable element to initiate the lookup. The activatable element is considered to be adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. Claims 36 and 37 use a pop-up window to display instructional information, again adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15, 18-20, 22-25, 28, and 31-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (20200327550) and further in view of Suermondt (2003/0018658).
Yamane discloses:
15. A system for validating target account data, the system comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute the stored instructions (0004) to:
generate an application that enables payment initiation on an endpoint device (0052, Interface 500 may be presented by, for example, a client application 138 running on the user device 130, or a website of the service provider that is accessed via a browser running on the user device 130.);
access the application to render one or more user interface elements for receiving target account data, wherein the one or more user interface elements include a first dialog box and a second dialog box (0052, Referring to FIG. SA, after the payment solicitation 400/450 is received, an example user/graphical interface 500 may be used to submit a payment request to the service provider system 110, according to potential embodiments. Interface 500 may be presented by, for example, a client application 138 running on the user device 130, or a website of the service provider that is accessed via a browser running on the user device 130.);
receive, through the endpoint device, a first input entered into the first dialog box, the first input comprising a number associated with the target account data (0052, Interface 500 allows the user to identify a destination account number);
receive, through the endpoint device, a second input entered into the second dialog box, the second input comprising a text associated with the target account data; (0052, identify a name (and address or other data) of the intended beneficiary at 510);
upon receipt of the first input and the second input, enable selection of an activatable element (0054, Following selection of the next icon 525);
transmit the first input and the second input to a server (0055, The service provider system 110, once data on the payment request has been entered/received);
automatically perform a lookup associated with the first input and the second input in the server (0055, The service provider system 110 (and/or the user device 130 in other potential implementations), once data on the payment request has been entered/received, validates the information. 0057, at 610, the service provider system 110 may transmit a validation request (via, e.g., an API call) to validate the account via the verification system 180. If step 610 occurs before the payee name has been entered by the user, the verification system 180 may be used to discover what account owner is associated with the account. For example, the verification system 180 may have account data 182 (in a ledger, database, etc.) with a list of account numbers and owners, and the verification system 180 may accept an account number from the service provider system 110 and, at 615, return to the service provider system 110 a response identifying the owner or other entity associated with the account/account number.),
receive a result of the lookup from the server (0057, For example, the verification system 180 may have account data 182 (in a ledger, database, etc.) with a list of account numbers and owners, and the verification system 180 may accept an account number from the service provider system 110 and, at 615, return to the service provider system 110 a response identifying the owner or other entity associated with the account/account number. The payee name, once received from the user at 620, may be compared with the owner or other entity identified in the response from the verification system 180 to validate the account number.);
transform the result of the lookup [using machine learning] into a transformed result (0045, an assurance score may be determined); and
present the transformed result on the application of the endpoint device ([0046] If (at 325) the service provider system 110 is not sufficiently assured that the destination account belongs to the intended beneficiary (“No”), then at 330, an alert or other notification is transmitted to the user device 130 to indicate, for example, that the destination account is not verified.).
Yamane does not disclose:
Using a machine learning algorithm
However, machine learning algorithms are old and well known per Suermondt (0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to perform the lookup analysis using machine learning for speed and efficiency.
Claims 28 and 29 are similar to claim 15 and are similarly rejected.
18. The system of claim 15, wherein the lookup results in a match between the data in the server and at least one of the first input and the second input (0057, For example, the verification system 180 may have account data 182 (in a ledger, database, etc.) with a list of account numbers and owners, and the verification system 180 may accept an account number from the service provider system 110 and, at 615, return to the service provider system 110 a response identifying the owner or other entity associated with the account/account number. The payee name, once received from the user at 620, may be compared with the owner or other entity identified in the response from the verification system 180 to validate the account number.).
The system of claim 15, wherein the transformed result includes a validation of at least one of the first input and the second input (see 0055 above).
Claim 31 is similar to claim 19 and is similarly rejected.
The system of claim 19, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
generate an indication of caution; and
present the transformed result to indicate the validation of at least one of the first input or the second input and the indication of caution on the endpoint device (Fig. 5B, 580, alert).
Claim 33 is similar to claim 20 and is similarly rejected.
The system of claim 18, wherein the transformed result includes an indication of no result (Para. 0060, alert or other notification indicating validation is unsuccessful).
Claim 32 is similar to claim 22 and is similarly rejected.
The system of claim 15, wherein the lookup results in no matches between the data in the server and one of the first input and the second input (Para. 0060, alert or other notification indicating validation is unsuccessful).
The system of claim 23, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate an indication of caution based on the no matches ; and (Fig. 5B)
present the transformed result to indicate the no matches and the indication of caution on the endpoint device (Fig. 5B).
The system of claim 24, wherein the indication of caution includes a level of caution (Fig. 5B).
34. The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more user interface elements further include an activatable element configured to initiate the lookup (0054, Following selection of the next icon 525, the client application or website may present a page/screen such as example user/graphical interface 550 depicted in FIG. 5B.).
Claim 35 is similarly rejected.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (2020/0327550) and further in view of Suermondt (2003/0018658) as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Hoopes (2007/0204001)
Yamane does not disclose:
16. The system of claim 15, wherein:
the lookup further comprises comparing the first input and the second input with data stored in the server; and the at least one processor is further configured to compare the first input and the second input with data stored in the server using fuzzy logic.
However, Hoopes discloses that fuzzy logic is well known as a comparison methodology (0014).
Combining the prior art of Yamane with the comparison methodology of Hoopes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to match data that may differ slightly but may still be a correct match.
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (2020/0327550) and further in view of Suermondt (2003/0018658) as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Goel (7689916)
Yamane does not disclose:
The system of claim 15, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to display a pop-up window on a user device to present the transformed result.
However, Goel discloses a pop-up in the first para. of the background (4) Many web pages and applications are constrained in screen space or back-end computing resources and cannot always provide full detailed information or content to all users. In these cases, users must click on a link to view detailed information either on a separate page or as a pop-up.
Presenting information via a pop-up would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Claim 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (2020/0327550) and further in view of Suermondt (2003/0018658) as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Amacker (9875284).
Yamane does not disclose:
The system of claim 15, wherein:
a first lookup is conducted after the first input is received; and
a second lookup is conducted after the second input is received.
The system of claim 26, wherein the second lookup compares data stored in the server with at least one of the first input and the second input.
However, Amacker discloses conducting a search according to a first input and conducting a search according to a second input (Cols. 3-4, ll 61-39).
Amacker may be combined with Yamane in order to refine the search result.
Claims 36 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (20200327550) and further in view of Suermondt (2003/0018658) as applied to claims 15 and 28, and further in view of Fister (EP 2560085 A1).
Yamane does not disclose:
36. The system of claim 15, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
generate a hover element for display on the platform, wherein the hover element triggers the tooltip to display a pop-up window; and
present instructional information associated with the tooltip on the pop-up window.
However, Fister discloses:
A tooltip is a small pop-up window in an application program that shows the user a description text about an element of the graphical user interface. The tooltip appears when the user hovers the mouse pointer over the object for a while and disappears automatically as soon as the user clicks on the button or the link or moves the mouse away. Tooltips may contain supplemental information about the associated item that is otherwise invisible; but they can also show the text that the object itself contains.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Yamane with the tooltip of Finster as Finster discloses the tooltip is a known in the art and is used to display information to the user. Yamane discloses that a message may be generated to the user as follows, (0060, Following re-evaluation at 640, another notification may be transmitted at 650 (e.g., a message…recommending that the user contact the intended beneficiary or otherwise check the account number).).
Claim 37 is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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