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
Claims 1-20 are pending. After careful consideration this action is a non-final office action on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 for example discloses “a first remote computing device”, a first is typically utilized to support at least a second of the same item. Here there is no second remote computing device. Instead there is a third party computing device which is not a third device. If there are more than one remote computing devices then “a first” is logical, however, the examiner does not find any second device. Applicant should clarify if first implies a second or is the 3rd party device the second device? The dependent claims deo not correct the concerns of claims 1, 10 and 16. Appropriate correction is 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method and computer readable medium (1, 10 and 16) respectively which are statutory categories of invention. Step 1 (yes) Claim 10 has been identified as the representative claim for analysis.
Claim 10 is directed to a computer method for better controlling payment for recurring transactions.
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. In this case a commercial or legal interaction which is considered to be part of the grouping of abstract ideas.
The abstract elements of claim 10 include;
receiving an updated data file from a … associated with a verified issuer of the updated data file, the updated data file corresponding to an accountholder and comprising an update to at least one data element of a plurality of data elements included within the updated data file; storing the updated data file in a secure data store based on a unique identifier; storing in the … at least one verification rule including one or more conditions for verifying a requesting third-party as a legitimate receiving party before transmitting the updated data file to the then verified third-party; monitoring network traffic of a … for the processing of data associated with the updated data file by an identified third-party processed within a predefined period of time; in response to detecting the processing of data associated with the updated data file by the identified third-party over the …, creating an additional verification rule for the identified third-party; receiving a query for an updated data file query from a … of a candidate requesting third-party, the query including the unique identifier for a corresponding updated data file and a request of the updated data file; applying the at least one verification rule to the query and the candidate requesting third-party; applying the additional verification rule to the candidate requesting third-party to confirm that the candidate requesting third-party has been identified as processing data associated with the requested updated data file over the processing network within the predefined period of time thereby verifying the candidate requesting third-party as a legitimate receiving party of the requested updated data file; and in response to verifying the candidate requesting third-party as the legitimate receiving party, automatically transmitting the requested updated data file to the verified requesting third-party thereby ensuring data security including that the legitimate third-party is receiving the updated data file before the updated data file is transmitted thereto.
Here the non abstract elements include “a first remote computing device”, “one or more memory devices”, “a processing network” and a “third party computing device”
The recitation of generic computing elements does not necessarily preclude a claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 10, 16 are abstract similar to claim 1. Step 2A Prong 1 Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of
“a first remote computing device”, “one or more memory devices”, “a processing network” and a “third party computing device”
The computer hardware/software are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component.
Accordingly these additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are of a high level of generality. Therefore claims x, y and z are directed to an abstract idea without a practical applicant. (Step 2A prong 2 No, the additional claimed element not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and as an ordered combination they do not add significantly more (also known as inventive concept) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Applicant’s specification includes an “abu computer” (0047). Which might be incorporated into the independent claims.
Thus claims 1, 10 and 16 are not patent eligible. (step 2B No the claims do not provide significantly more). Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 and 17-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus the claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent Publication to Knudsen 20140365363
As per claim 10 Knudsen discloses;
receiving an updated data file
from a first remote computing device associated with a verified issuer of the updated data file, the updated data file corresponding to an accountholder
and comprising an update to at least one data element of a plurality of data elements included within the updated data file;
Knudsen(0123)
storing the updated data file in a secure data store based on a unique identifier;
Knudsen(0138, identifier for the access device for example)
storing in the one or more memory devices at least one verification rule including one or more conditions for verifying a requesting third-party as a legitimate receiving party before transmitting the updated data file to the then verified third-party;
Knudsen(0169)
monitoring network traffic of a processing network for the processing of data associated with the updated data file by an identified third-party processed within a predefined period of time;
Knudsen(0114, efficiently routing…. Thus monitoring to do this)
in response to detecting the processing of data associated with the updated data file by the identified third-party over the processing network, creating an additional verification rule for the identified third-party;
Knudsen(0095)
receiving a query for an updated data file query from a third-party computing device of a candidate requesting third-party, the query including the unique identifier for a corresponding updated data file and a request of the updated data file;
Knudsen(0088 unique tokens)
applying the at least one verification rule to the query and the candidate requesting third-party;
Knudsen(0076 verification code)
applying the additional verification rule to the candidate requesting third-party to confirm that the candidate requesting third-party has been identified as processing data associated with the requested updated data file over the processing network within the predefined period of time thereby
Knudsen(0088 specified period of time)
verifying the candidate requesting third-party as a legitimate receiving party of the requested updated data file; and in response to verifying the candidate requesting third-party as the legitimate receiving party, automatically
Knudsen(0057, what is legitimate, but Knudsen can work with third party providers)
transmitting the requested updated data file to the verified requesting third-party thereby ensuring data security including that the legitimate third-party is receiving the updated data file before the updated data file is transmitted thereto.
Knudsen(0029, “ensuring security” is more of intended use, and “legitimate” is similar)
claims 1, 16 are similar to claim 10
As per claims 2, 11 Knudsen discloses;
The computing system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one verification rule is derived from one or more data sets including one or more of (i) account activity data, (ii) fraud data, or (iii) merchant activity data, and wherein the candidate requesting third-party is a merchant.
Knudsen(0092)
As per claims 3, 17, Knudsen discloses; The computing system of Claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to access one or more data sources that store at least one of (i) the account activity data, (ii) the fraud data, or (iii) the merchant activity data.
Knudsen(one of is a choice, “activity data including suspicious” 0092)
As per claims 4, 12 and 18 Knudsen discloses;
The computing system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to:
in response to verifying the candidate requesting third-party as not being the legitimate receiving party,
automatically transmit a denial message in response to the query to the candidate requesting third-party, the denial message including one or more reasons for denial of the query.
Knudsen(reject/approve, 0092)
As per claims 5,13 Knudsen discloses;
The computing system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to: continually monitor network traffic for prior approved transactions associated with the updated data file and the candidate requesting third-party within the predetermined period of time.
Knudsen(0114,0118)
As per claim 6, Knudsen discloses;
The computing system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to: generate one or more party-specific reports to at least one party associated with the processing network, wherein the one or more party-specific reports contain data specific to the at least one party; and transmit the one or more party-specific reports to the at least one entity via the processing network.
Knudsen(0099 reports….. various)
As per claims 7, 14 Knudsen discloses;
The computing system of Claim 6, wherein the at least one party is at least one of the verified issuer or the candidate requesting third-party, and the one or more party-specific reports is formatted using one of (i) extensible markup language (XML), or (ii) a standard including one of ISO 8583 or ISO 20022.
Knudsen (0111 8583 or XLM)
As per claim 19 Knudsen discloses; The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 16, wherein the updated data file comprises a message transmitted from the verified issuer to the computing system via the processing network.
Knudsen (0126)
As per claim 8 Knudsen discloses;
The computing system of Claim 1, wherein the additional verification rule is based on an account identifier associated with an account of the accountholder, and wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to: verify the candidate requesting third-party as the legitimate receiving party based in part upon the account identifier.
Knudsen(0173, history of transactions)
As per claims 9, 15 and 20 Knudsen discloses;
The computing system of Claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to: verify the candidate requesting third-party as the legitimate receiving party based in part upon one of (i) whether the candidate requesting third-party has prior approved transactions corresponding to the account identifier, or (ii) whether the query was received beyond a predetermined time period since a last approved transaction corresponding to the account identifier.
Knudsen(0173, history of transactions)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Card-Present Transactions on the Internet Using the Smart Card Web Server, IEEE 2013
Emerging ecommerce credit and debit card protocols, IEEE, 2002
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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 W 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693