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 1-14 are canceled and claims 15-33 are new.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: a platform that enables payment initiation and 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.
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) 15-33 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 a platform that enables payment initiation on an endpoint device;
access the platform that enables payment initiation;
receive, through the endpoint device, a first input associated with target account data;
receive, through the endpoint device, a second input associated with target account data;
transmit 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 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 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.
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 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17 recites continuously performing the lookup but this continuous process is described as an alternative to the automatic lookup process in 0056 of the specification. It is unclear how the alternative process can be used together with the initial automatic process.
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, 29 and 31-33 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 a platform 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 a platform that enables payment initiation (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 associated with target account data (0052, Interface 500 allows the user to identify a destination account at 505 by entering a routing number and account number);
receive, through the endpoint device, a second input associated with 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 to 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 a no results (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).
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.
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 15, 19, is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 8 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/527083 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims comprise all elements of the present claims aside from the endpoint device. Limitations such as "access the platform..." , "transmit the...input...to a server", a server, and "receive a result..." are obvious to one of ordinary skill and thus anticipates the present claim.
[AltContent: textbox (1. A system for validating target account data, the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the stored instructions to:
generate a platform that enables payment initiation [through a server];
_________________________________
_________________________________
receive, through the [platform], a first input associated with target account data;
receive, through the [platform], a second input associated with target account data;
_________________________________
[wherein the target account data is associated with a physically unverifiable target beneficiary;]
_________________________________
upon receipt of the first input and the second input, enable selection of an activatable element;
in response to selection of the activatable element, perform a lookup associated with the first input and the second input, to validate the first input and the second input, [wherein the lookup comprises]:
_________________________
retrieving information corresponding to the first input and the second input from a dataset stored in the server; and
generating a lookup analysis using a machine learning algorithm based on the retrieved information;
_________________________________
transform the lookup analysis using the machine learning algorithm into a transformed result;
[wherein the transformed result indicates a verification probability of the target beneficiary based on the lookup analysis; and]
_______________________________________
present the transformed result.)][AltContent: textbox (15. A system for [automatically] validating target account data, the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the stored instructions to:
generate a platform that enables payment initiation [on an endpoint device];-----
_______________________________________
[access the platform that enables payment initiation;]
_______________________________________
receive, through the [endpoint device], a first input associated with target account data;
receive, through the [endpoint device], a second input associated with target account data;
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
transmit 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 endpoint device].)]
Claim 28 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/527083 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 comprises all elements of claim 15 aside from the endpoint device. Limitations such as "access the platform..." , "transmit the...input...to a server", a server, and "receive a result..." but are obvious to one of ordinary skill and thus anticipates the present claim.
[AltContent: textbox (14. A computer-implemented method for validating target account data, the method comprising: generate a platform that enables repetitive payment initiation through a server;
____________________________________
receiving, [through the platform], a first input associated with target account data;
receiving, [through the platform], a second input associated with target account data;
____________________________________
[wherein the target account data is associated with a physically unverifiable target beneficiary;]
____________________________________
upon receipt of the first input and the second input, enable selection of an activatable element;
in response to selection of the activatable element, perform a lookup associated with the first input and the second input, to validate the first input and the second input, [wherein the lookup comprises]:
____________________________________
retrieving information corresponding to the first input and the second input from a dataset stored in the server; and
generating a lookup analysis using a machine learning algorithm based on the retrieved information;
____________________________________
transform the lookup analysis using the machine learning algorithm into a transformed result;
[wherein the transformed result indicates a verification probability of the target beneficiary based on the lookup analysis; and]
____________________________________
present the transformed result.)][AltContent: textbox (28. A method comprising: accessing a platform that enables payment initiation;----
____________________________________
receiving a first input associated with target account data;
receiving a second input associated with 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 endpoint device.)]
Similarly, Claims 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 28, 29, and 31-33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-19, 23, 25 and 29-32 of copending Application No. 18/968495 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims comprise all elements of the present claims and thus anticipates the present claims.
Similarly, Claims 15 and 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 28 and 31, and 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 28, 29, and 30 of copending Application No. 18/982273 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 15 and 29 of the reference claims comprise all elements of claims 15 and 28 and thus anticipates the present claim.
Similarly, Claims 15-16, 18, 19, 21, 23 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-17, 18, 19, 23, 25 of copending Application No. 18/974380 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although claim 1 does not recite certain system elements, which are obvious to one of ordinary skill, claim 1 of the reference claims comprise all other elements of claim 15 and thus anticipates the present claim.
Similarly, Claims 15-16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 28-32 and 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-17, 18, 19, 23, 26 and 31-35 of copending Application No. 18/977023 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims comprise all other elements of the present claims and thus anticipates the present claim.
Similarly, Claims 15, 16, 19, 23, 28 and 32, 29, 31 and 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 17, 20, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of copending Application No. 18/985990 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims comprise all other elements of the present claims and thus anticipates the present claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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