DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claim 1 is directed to a method. Claim 20 is directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
The claims when the bolded limitations are removed recite the following limitations:
Claim 1 recites:
A method for a card interfacing, the method comprising:
displaying, in a user interface of a wallet application, a plurality of representations of cards;
receiving, through the user interface of the wallet application, a user input corresponding to a selection of a first representation of a first card from the plurality of representations of cards;
retrieving, using the wallet application, account information associated with the first card; and
facilitating, using the wallet application, a transaction using the account information associated with the first card.
Claim 2 recites: receiving a location of a device, wherein the wallet application runs on the device, wherein the first representation is displayed in the user interface of the wallet application based on a proximity between the location of the device and a location of a first merchant, and wherein the first card is associated with the first merchant.
Claim 3 recites: wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes sending the account information.
Claim 4 recites: displaying, in a user interface, a plurality of representations of transaction mediums;
receiving, through the user interface, a user input corresponding to a selection of a first representation of a first transaction medium from the plurality of representations of transaction mediums;
retrieving account information associated with the first transaction medium; and facilitating a transaction using the account information associated with the first
transaction medium.
Claim 5 recites: wherein the first transaction medium is a card.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the first transaction medium is one of a credit card or a debit card.
Claim 7 recites: wherein the first transaction medium is a pre-paid card associated with at least one merchant.
Claim 8 recites: wherein the first transaction medium is associated with a bank account.
Claim 9 recites: wherein the user interface is associated with a wallet application, wherein the wallet application is used for retrieving the account information associated with the first transaction medium, and wherein the wallet application is used for facilitating the transaction using the account information associated with the first transaction medium.
Claim 10 recites: receiving a location of a device, wherein the user interface is associated with the device, wherein the first representation is displayed in the user interface based on a proximity between the location of the device and a location of a first merchant, and wherein the first transaction medium is associated with the first merchant.
Claim 11 recites: wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes sending the account information to a point of sale terminal.
Claim 12 recites: wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes sending the account information over a wireless signal.
Claim 13 recites: wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes sending the account information to a server associated with an online shopping website.
Claim 14 recites: wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes facilitating the transaction as a cardless transaction.
Claim 15 recites: wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information is associated with closing a tab.
Claim 16 recites: identifying, based on a location of a device, that the device has crossed a boundary of a geofence area, wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information is responsive to identifying that the device has crossed the boundary of the geofence area.
Claim 17 recites: wherein the transaction mediums include at least the first transaction medium and a second transaction medium, wherein the first transaction medium is associated with a first merchant, wherein the second transaction medium is associated with a second merchant, and wherein the plurality of representations of transaction mediums are arranged, in the user interface, according to respective proximities of the first merchant and the second merchant to a location of a device associated with the user interface.
Claim 18 recites: providing, to a merchant device associated with a merchant, an image of a user, wherein the user is associated with the first transaction medium, and wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information is responsive to a verification of an identity of the user based on the image.
Claim 19 recites: providing, to a merchant device associated with a merchant, a personal identification number (PIN), wherein the PIN is associated with the first transaction medium, and wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information is responsive to a verification of the PIN.
Claim 20 recites:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory units communicatively coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
display, in a user interface, a plurality of representations of transaction mediums;
receive, through the user interface, a user input corresponding to a selection of a first representation of a first transaction medium from the plurality of representations of transaction mediums;
retrieve account information associated with the first transaction medium; and
facilitate a transaction using the account information associated with the first transaction medium.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activity such as a commercial or legal interaction (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations because it amounts to the functions of :
receiving, a user input corresponding to a selection of a first representation of a first card from the plurality of representations of cards, retrieving account information associated with the first card, and facilitating, a transaction using the account information associated with the first card.
The BRI of the claimed limitations describes functions of :
receiving, a user input corresponding to a selection of a first representation of a first card from the plurality of representations of cards, retrieving account information associated with the first card, and facilitating, a transaction using the account information associated with the first card.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above bolded limitations noted above as understood to be the additional limitations:
The claimed “device”, “user interface of a wallet application” and a “processor“ with a “memory” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or processor with a memory.
Performing steps or functions by a device or user interface with an application or a processor with a memory merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05.
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
“Receiving” data, “retrieving” data and displaying data are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The functions of the claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors or a user interface or a device.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence or functions of "receiving, a user input corresponding to a selection of a first representation of a first card from the plurality of representations of cards, retrieving account information associated with the first card, and facilitating, a transaction using the account information associated with the first card".
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a “device”, a “processor” with a memory, and a “user interface with a wallet application” does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed processor, device and user interface are noted to a be a generic computer for displaying, receiving and retrieving data, and performing routine and expected computer functions therein. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processor”, “user interface” and “device” or “merchant device” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the 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.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-17 and 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alberth, Jr. (US Pat. No. 7464863 B2 ) in view of Roskind (US Pub. No. 2004/0024703).
As per claims 1, 4 and 20, Alberth, Jr. et al disclose a system and method using a computerized system with a processor and memory for allowing a user or client with a mobile device to enter or register a plurality of cards or account information and setting geographic information or limits on the usage of the cards or accounts at a plurality of merchants or merchant locations. See the abstract of Alberth, Jr. et al.
Accordingly, Alberth, Jr. et al teach or suggest:
A method for a card interfacing, the method comprising: obtaining card information of a user
to be used for a subsequent transaction. See the abstract of Alberth, Jr. et al. The card information will be displayed to the user or account owner to be used in a transaction.
Alberth, Jr. et al do not explicitly state:
displaying, in a user interface of a wallet application, a plurality of representations of cards.
However, Alberth et al. teach obtaining by scanning images of wallet cards and card information obtained to be displayed as a default or as a first card to be used for a given transaction upon the card owner entering a merchant location (see column 3, lines 4-26 of Alberth, Jr. et al.).
Roskind discloses a system and method for registering a plurality of accounts or financial cards into a digital wallet of a client. See the abstract of Roskind. Roskind further discloses displaying the accounts or transaction medium to be used in a particular transaction on a ranking basis according to certain criteria or parameters. See paragraphs [0025] and [0031] of Roskind.
Alberth, Jr. et al further teach receiving, through the user interface of the wallet application, a user input corresponding to a selection of a first card from the plurality of card information, as Alberth et al teach displaying card data to the client or card-owner for selecting to make payments of a transaction when the client’s device is sensed to be at a given distance from the merchant. See column 3, lines 3-26 of Alberth, Jr. et al. See also paragraph [0025] of Roskind.
Both Alberth et al. and Roskind further teach:
retrieving, using the wallet application, account information associated with the first card (see column 8, lines 32-48 of Alberth, Jr. et al. and paragraphs [0025] and [0030] of Roskind), and
facilitating, using the wallet application, a transaction using the account information associated with the first card (see column 8, lines 32-48 of Alberth, Jr. et al. and paragraphs [0025] and [0030] of Roskind).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the early filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Aberth, Jr. et al and Roskind et al in order to allow a user the opportunity to select a most appropriately or financially advantageous card for making payment for a given transaction.
As per claim 2, Alberth, Jr. et al. teach or disclose: receiving a location of a device, wherein the wallet application runs on the device, wherein the first representation is displayed in the user interface of the wallet application based on a proximity between the location of the device and a location of a first merchant, and wherein the first card is associated with the first merchant. See column 5 line 65 to column 6, line 16 of Alberth, Jr. et al.
As per claim 3, Alberth, Jr. et al teach or disclose wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes sending the account information. See column 5, line 5 to column 6, line 16 and column 4, lines 54-67 of Alberth, Jr. et al.
As per claim 5, Alberth, Jr. et al teach or disclose wherein the first transaction medium is a card. See the abstract and column 4, lines 40-54 of Alberth, Jr. et al.
As per claim 6, Alberth, Jr. et al. do not specifically state wherein the first transaction medium is one of a credit card or a debit card. Alberth, Jr. et al. disclose other payment cards may be involved or used in financial transactions. (See column 6, line 27-42 of Alberth et al.). These “other cards” are usually typical payment cards such as debit cards and/or credit cards as found or used in most financial payment systems. Alternatively, see paragraph [0021] of Roskind where it is taught using credit or debit cards.
As per claim 7, the teachings of Alberth, Jr. et al and Roskind are discussed above. The combined teaching does not explicitly state wherein the first transaction medium is a pre-paid card associated with at least one merchant.
Alberth, Jr. et al teach providing giftcards as a form of payment. Pre-paid cards are types of a giftcarts as being involved in a financial transaction. See column 6, line 27-42 of Alberth, Jr. et al. These “giftcards” or “pre-paid cards” associated with a merchant are usually typical payment cards used in financial transaction at a particular merchant location as being the issuing establishment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include a pre-paid card in the system and method of Alberth, Jr. et al and Roskind in order to provide a plurality of alternate cards or financial accounts, therein, thus providing an attractive system to many different clients.
As per claim 8, the teachings of Alberth, Jr. et al are discussed above. Alberth, Jr. et al. do not explicitly state wherein the first transaction medium is associated with a bank account. Roskind teaches making a payment using a first payment account or card being associated with a merchant’s bank. See paragraph [0032] of Roskind.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Roskind into the system and method of Alberth, Jr. et al in order to allow or accept various types of payments therein thus making the system more attractive to both merchants and clients.
As per claim 9, Both Alberth, Jr. et al and Roskind teach the user interface is associated with a wallet application, wherein the wallet application is used for retrieving the account information associated with the first transaction medium, and wherein the wallet application is used for facilitating the transaction using the account information associated with the first transaction medium. See column 6, lines 1-16 of Alberth, Jr. et al. See also paragraphs [0025] and [0030] of Roskind.
As per claim 10, Alberth, Jr. et al. teach or disclose receiving a location of a device, wherein the user interface is associated with the device, wherein the first representation is displayed in the user interface based on a proximity between the location of the device and a location of a first merchant, and wherein the first transaction medium is associated with the first merchant. See column 6, lines 1-16 of Alberth Jr. et al.
As per claim 11, Alberth, Jr. et al. teach or disclose wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes sending the account information to a point of sale terminal. See column 7, lines 32-48 of Alberth, Jr. et al.
As per claim 12, Alberth, Jr. et al. teach or disclose wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes sending the account information over a wireless signal. See column 7, lines 21-54 of Alberth, Jr. et al.
As per claim 13, the teachings of Alberth et al are discussed above. Online shopping is not explicitly stated on Alberth et al. However, the financial accounts depicted in Alberth et al could have also been used on an online shopping environment at the effective filing date of the invention, although not specifically stated. However, Roskind teaches and discloses “ wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes sending the account information to a server associated with an online shopping website”. See paragraph [0026] of Roskind.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the early filing date of the invention to allow a user to use the accounts in an online shopping website as taught by Roskind in the system and method of Alberth et al. in order to provide a versatile system in which the digital wallet is used at most merchants having network capabilities.
As per claim 14, Alberth, Jr. et al. disclose wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information includes facilitating the transaction as a cardless transaction. See column 8, lines 27-49 of Alberth et al.
As per claim 15, the combined system of Alberth, Jr. et al and Roskind is a computerized system having accessible website. Accordingly, the combined system of Alberth, Jr. et al and Roskind would have facilitated the transaction using the account information being associated with closing a tab as most computerized systems having a web page comprise a closing tab.
As per claim 16, Alberth, Jr. et al teach or disclose: identifying, based on a location of a device, that the device has crossed a boundary of a geofence area, wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information is responsive to identifying that the device has crossed the boundary of the geofence area. See column 5, lines 49-59 of Alberth, Jr. et al.
As per claim 17, the combination of Alberth, Jr. et al and Roskind are discussed above. Roskind teaches teach “the transaction mediums include at least the first transaction medium and a second transaction medium, wherein the first transaction medium is associated with a first merchant, wherein the second transaction medium is associated with a second merchant. This is taught by Roskind at paragraphs [0024], [0025] and [0030] of Roskind).
The combined teachings of Alberth, Jr. et al and Roskind do not explicitly state “wherein the plurality of representations of transaction mediums are arranged, in the user interface, according to respective proximities of the first merchant and the second merchant to a location of a device associated with the user interface”.
Alberth et al disclose displaying the instruments to be used for selection purposes based on proximities of a merchant and a client’s device storing the plurality of account data.
Roskind discloses displaying the accounts or transaction medium to be used in a particular transaction on a ranking basis according to certain criteria or parameters. See paragraphs [0025] and [0031] of Roskind.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the early filing date of the invention to have “the plurality of representations of transaction mediums are arranged, in the user interface, according to respective proximities of the first merchant and the second merchant to a location of a device associated with the user interface” for easy selection of a card to be used for given transaction at a particular merchant.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alberth, Jr. (US Pat. No. 7,464,863 B2 ) in view of Roskind (US Pub. No. 2004/0024703) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Nelsen et al (US Pub. No. 2010/0063906 A1)
As per claim 18, the combined teachings of Alberth, Jr. et al and Roskind are discussed above. The combination of Alberth, Jr. et al. and Roskind does not explicitly state “providing, to a merchant device associated with a merchant, an image of a user, wherein the user is associated with the first transaction medium, and wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information is responsive to a verification of an identity of the user based on the image”.
Nelsen et al disclose a system and method for allowing a user or account holder to store a plurality of cards or account information in a digital wallet. See the abstract of Nelsen et al. Nelsen et al further teach storing the image of the account holder with the account information. See paragraph [0022] of Nelsen et al. where it is stated:
“[0022] The virtual cards 32 may be stored value cards, such as gift cards, membership cards, virtual identification cards, etc. Each virtual card may include one or more related card data, including, but not limited to, an identification (ID) number, a stored value, a name, a bar code, image data (e.g. picture of a card holder), data corresponding to the associated goods and services system through which the card may be used, etc. The virtual cards 32 may be stored or maintained by a user in a mobile card wallet. The mobile card wallet may be a virtual electronic wallet (file or application) that manages virtual cards. In some systems, the mobile card wallet may enable a user to organize and access the virtual cards similar to how a tangible physical wallet enables storage of plastic cards. The mobile card wallet may be client-based software on the mobile computing device or may be browser-based software accessed by a mobile computing device”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Nelson et al into the combined system and method of Alberth, Jr., et al and Roskind in order to have an added verification and fraud prevention measure therein.
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alberth, Jr. (US Pat. No. 7,464,863 B2 ) in view of Roskind (US Pub. No. 2004/0024703) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Smith et al (US Pub. No. 2010/0125510 A1).
As per claim 19, the teachings of Alberth, Jr. et al and Roskind are discussed above. Alberth, Jr. et al do not explicitly state “providing, to a merchant device associated with a merchant, a personal identification number (PIN), wherein the PIN is associated with the first transaction medium, and wherein facilitating the transaction using the account information is responsive to a verification of the PIN”.
Smith et al disclose a system and method for registering a plurality of accounts or financial cards into a virtual wallet of a client. See the abstract of Smith et al. Account data being stored with the accounts include the PIN associated with an account or card or financial instrument. See paragraph [0073] of Smith et al. where Smith et al state:
“[0073] The mobile wallet allows a user to easily add one or more provider issued accounts to the mobile wallet or perform maintenance on existing provider accounts. After enrolling a provider in the wallet, a user may enroll or add accounts issued by the provider. The user may provide account details for the account the user would like to enroll. The provider may determine which account details are required to identify the account, e.g., account number, PIN, or other parameter(s) required by provider. The user may further provide additional information to authenticate with the provider, including but not limited to online account credentials, account PIN/Password, mother's maiden name, etc. Since the physical possession of the phone provides stronger (yet still soft) authentication than on-line, a light-weight authentication may be provided to minimize usage friction. However, a stronger authentication may be provided to adapt to stricter security standards of many providers”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Smith et al into the system and method of Alberth, Jr., et al and Roskind in order to have an added fraud prevention measure therein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights