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 the Claims
The following office action in response to the Preliminary Amendments filed on 4/30/2025.
Claims 21-40 are newly added.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Therefore, claims 21-40 are pending and addressed below.
Claims and Specification Objections
Claims 21, 31 and 36 and the Applicant’s specification are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 21, 31 and 36 and the Applicant’s specification recite an abbreviation “QR” code. What is the “QR” stand for? The abbreviation “QR” needs to be spelled out. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 21-40 are directed to a method, a system, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…receive an onboarding request from a candidate user for onboarding the candidate user in real-time to processing electronic payment transactions, the candidate user having DAC data associated with online activities of the candidate user, the onboarding request including a request from the candidate user to avoid exposure of the candidate user's PII data; retrieve a first set of DAC data for the candidate user excluding any PII data of the candidate user, the first set of DAC data representing the online activities of the candidate user; generate weighting factors for the first set of DAC data of the candidate user, wherein a greater weighting factor indicates a greater likelihood of anomalous data included within the first set of DAC data; build one or more scoring rules based on (i) the first set of DAC data which excludes any PII data of the candidate user, (ii) the generated weighting factors, and (iii) one or more parameters; transmit the one or more scoring rules specific to the candidate user, the one or more scoring rules configured to be executed on a second set of DAC data that includes PII data of the candidate user thereby generating an online activity score that is specific to the candidate user without exposing any PII data of the candidate user outside; receive an output from the one or more scoring rules applied for the candidate user, wherein the output does not include any PII data of the candidate user; register, based at least in part upon the output from the one or more scoring rules, the candidate user as an onboarded user for processing electronic payment transactions; receive, in real-time, a QR code specifically associated with the onboarded user, the QR code including scannable data for initiating access to the dedicated computer network; and cause real-time transmission of the QR code to a user associated with the onboarded user…”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. initiate or processing electronic payment transactions for the onboarded merchant) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the system claim of an onboarding computing device, a memory, a processor, a DAC computing device, a dedicated computer network and a user computing device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…receive …an onboarding request from a candidate user…; retrieve… a first set of DAC data; generate …weighting factors for the first set of DAC data; build… one or more scoring rules…; transmit …the one or more scoring rules specific to the candidate user…thereby generating… an online activity score …; receive …an output…; register…the candidate user as an onboarded user…; receive… in real-time, a QR code; and cause real-time transmission …of the QR code to a user…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the onboarding computing device, the memory, the processor, the DAC computing device, the dedicated computer network and the user computing device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…receive …an onboarding request from a candidate user…; retrieve… a first set of DAC data; generate …weighting factors for the first set of DAC data; build… one or more scoring rules…; transmit …the one or more scoring rules specific to the candidate user…thereby generating… an online activity score …; receive …an output…; register…the candidate user as an onboarded user…; receive… in real-time, a QR code; and cause real-time transmission …of the QR code to a user…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 31 and 36 are rejected based on the reasoning applicable to claim 21. Thus, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 22-30, 32-35 and 37-40 are dependent on claims 21, 31 and 36. Therefore, claims 22-30, 32-35 and 37-40 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 21, 31 and 36. Claims 22-30, 32-35 and 37-40 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the processor, the dedicated computer network, the third-party computing device, the external computing device, the user computing device, the onboarding computing device and the DAC computing device included in the dependent claims 24, 26, 30, 32-35, 37 and 40 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “transmit …the second set of DAC data to a third-party for the generation of the QR code…” (claim 24); “display …and scanned… data of the displayed QR code…” (claims 26, 32 and 37); and “…virtue of the transmission of the one or more scoring rules, the PII data is isolated…thereby limiting… access to the PII data of the candidate user…” (claims 30, 35 and 40), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 22-30, 32-35 and 37-40 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the processor, the dedicated computer network, the third-party computing device, the external computing device, the user computing device, the onboarding computing device and the DAC computing device included in the dependent claims 24, 26, 30, 32-35, 37 and 40 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “transmit …the second set of DAC data to a third-party for the generation of the QR code…” (claim 24); “display …and scanned… data of the displayed QR code…” (claims 26, 32 and 37); and “…virtue of the transmission of the one or more scoring rules, the PII data is isolated…thereby limiting… access to the PII data of the candidate user…” (claims 30, 35 and 40), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 22-30, 32-35 and 37-40 are not patent eligible.
Notes: Regarding the prior art rejections, Stringfellow et al. (2010/0174620) teaches a payment system and method of processing payment authorization requests for payment transactions to be conducted via a data communications network, and is particularly, but not exclusively, suited to payment authorization requests being conducted as a result of orders by financial account holders via a plurality of different online merchant systems. The payment authorization requests are conducted as a result of orders by financial account holders via a plurality of different online merchant systems, wherein the financial account holders hold accounts with a plurality of different issuing banks. The method includes conducting an account identification procedure comprising identifying, from the plurality of different issuing banks, an issuing bank associated with a financial account holder and on the basis of the identification of the issuing bank, retrieving issuing bank transmission data to enable the transmission of account identification request data. The issuing bank transmission data is dependent upon the identified issuing bank and identifying a selected account identification system associated with the identified issuing bank. The method also includes transmitting on the basis of the retrieved issuing bank transmission data, an account identification request for use in the authorization of at least one payment transaction. The at least one payment transaction is initiated as a result of a financial account holder conducting at least one order via at least one online merchant system. An account identification response is received in response to the account identification request. The account identification response identifies a financial account identity capable of being used in the at least one payment transaction. Jain et al. (2019/0259018) teaches methods and systems for electronic payment transactions from Person to Merchant (P2M). The server system includes a communication interface, a memory, and a processor communicably coupled to the communication interface and the memory. The communication interface receives a payment transaction request. The payment transaction request is initiated using a messaging protocol on a user device of a user. The payment transaction request includes at least a merchant ID associated with a merchant and a transaction amount. The memory includes executable instructions. The processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the server system to at least verify the merchant ID from a mapping table including a plurality of merchant information associated with a plurality of merchants. Upon successful verification of the merchant ID from the mapping table, the server system is also caused to facilitate a payment transaction of the transaction amount from an issuer account of the user to an acquirer account of the merchant. Christner (2015/0161609) teaches a system and method of operation are disclosed that may aid in fraud detection when processing payment card transactions. A transaction processing system receives a payment request from a merchant and retrieves merchant metadata associated with a merchant profile based on the payment request. An initial risk score for the transaction is determined based, at least in part, on the merchant metadata. The system then dynamically adjusts the risk score based on the received payment request and the merchant metadata. The system may determine, based on the risk score, whether to: send a notification message to a system administrator indicating a high risk transaction; request a review of the transaction by the system administrator; and/or decline the transaction.
However, the combination of prior arts of record would be hind-sight reasoning to combine the individual elements disclosed in the prior art in order to achieve Applicant's claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
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 571-270-6108.
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.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights