DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 7-26 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/12/25, 3/21/25, 8/5/25, 8/22/25, 10/17/25, and 12/23/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Current ’686 Application
Parent ‘428: please note that the quoted text below may not be in the same order as the original’s; instead, for comprehension, they may be listed to match the elements of current application (on the left);
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system of an issuer of an account, a text message from a mobile computing device of a user of the account,
the text message including a user-input instruction indicative of one or more criteria defining unauthorized transactions corresponding to the account;
(the examiner notes that the current claim are even broader than the allowed parent claim – i.e. any criteria instead of the parent’s more specific time range criteria)
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system of an issuer of a payment vehicle, a first text message from a mobile computing device of a holder of the payment vehicle, the first text message including a user-input instruction of the holder of the payment vehicle, the user-input instruction providing a time range during which transfers from an online banking account for the payment vehicle are to be disabled while permitting access to a status of the online banking account;
updating, by a transaction engine of the computing system, logic associated with the account to indicate that transaction requests meeting the one or more criteria are to be blocked and transaction requests not meeting the one or more criteria are to be approved without requiring subsequent authorization from the user of the account;
updating, by a transaction engine of the computing system, logic associated with the payment vehicle such that electronic transaction requests meeting the criteria are automatically denied and electronic transaction requests not meeting the criteria are approved without requiring subsequent authorization from the holder of the payment vehicle
receiving, by the computing system, a transaction request corresponding to the account;
receiving, by the computing system, a request for a transfer from the online banking account for the payment vehicle to a recipient;
determining, by the computing system, based on the logic, whether the transaction request meets the criteria defining unauthorized transactions for the account; and
(the examiner notes again that the current claim are even broader than the allowed parent claim – i.e. any criteria instead of the parent’s time range criteria being met)
determining, by the computing system, that the request for the transfer from the online banking account for the payment vehicle to the recipient is received during the time range provided in the user-input instruction; and
in response to determining that the transaction request meets the criteria based on the logic, denying, by the computing system, the transaction request, or
in response to determining that the transaction request does not meet the criteria based on the logic, approving, by the computing system, the transaction request.
in response to determining that the request for the transfer from the online banking account for the payment vehicle is received during the time range: denying, by the computing system, the request for the transfer from the online banking account for the payment vehicle,
Claim Objections
The examiner is objecting to claim 24 for lacking clarity. Claim 24 recites the limitation "a computing system of an issuer of an account" twice. The specification seems to suggest that there is only one computing system of an issuer of an account. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner assumes that they are the same system.
Examiner’s Comments Relating to Prior Art
The examiner notes that there are no prior art rejections for dependent claims 10 and 11 because prior art searches have yielded nothing similar to the claimed invention. This is because the claims contain very specific steps and procedures in the business idea of transaction approval. At a high level, the invention is about updating and implementing criteria for approval or denying transaction payment requests.
Specifically, dependent claim 15 further discloses (in addition to the elements disclosed by the referenced claim) the very specific steps and elements of: “receiving, by the computing system, from the mobile computing device, an additional text message indicating the account is to be turned "off'; and in response to receiving the additional text message, updating, by the transaction engine of the computing system, the logic such that the account is deactivated for all subsequent transactions (emphasis examiner’s).” Thus, there are no prior art rejections because prior art searches have yielded nothing similar to the claimed invention – in combination with the referenced independent claim elements. Incorporation of these specific elements (positively claimed and in their entirety) into all the dependent claims may help advance the patent prosecution process.
Specifically, dependent claim 16 further discloses (in addition to the elements disclosed by the referenced claim) the very specific steps and elements of: “receiving, by the computing system, from the mobile computing device, an additional text message indicating the account is to be turned "on"; and in response to receiving the additional text message, updating, by the transaction engine of the computing system, the logic to remove the one or more criteria such that subsequent transaction requests are approved without requiring subsequent authorization from the user of the account (emphasis examiner’s).” Thus, there are no prior art rejections because prior art searches have yielded nothing similar to the claimed invention – in combination with the referenced independent claim elements. Incorporation of these specific elements (positively claimed and in their entirety) into all the dependent claims may help advance the patent prosecution process.
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 7-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 7-26 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 7 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 24 and product claim 26. Claim 7 recites the limitations of updating and implementing criteria for approval or denying transaction payment requests.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Receiving a text message; the text message includes user instruction on criteria to deny transactions; updating logic for denying/approving transactions; receiving transaction payment request; determining if the transaction is to be approved or denied; if denying, then denying (really it’s “approving” b/c of the way it’s written) the payment request, OR if approving (really it’s “denying” b/c of the way it’s written) the payment request, – specifically, the claim recites
receiving… a text message… the text message including a user-input instruction indicative of one or more criteria defining unauthorized transactions corresponding to the account; updating… logic associated with the account to indicate that transaction requests meeting the one or more criteria are to be blocked and transaction requests not meeting the one or more criteria are to be approved without requiring subsequent authorization from the user of the account; receiving… a transaction request corresponding to the account; determining… based on the logic, whether the transaction request meets the criteria defining unauthorized transactions for the account; and in response to determining that the transaction request meets the criteria based on the logic, denying… the transaction request, or in response to determining that the transaction request does not meet the criteria based on the logic, approving… the transaction request, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a computing system”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, “a computing system of an issuer of an account”, “a mobile computing device”, and “a transaction engine of the computing system”, in claim 24; and the additional technical element of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” in claim 26, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 7 and 26 are also abstract for similar reasons. (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 computer such as a computing system, one or more processors, a computing system of an issuer of an account, a mobile computing device, and a transaction engine of the computing system; and a storage unit such as memory and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium;
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer 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 at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 7, 24, and 25 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are 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 an “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 a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 7, 24, and 25 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 7, 24, and 25 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of wherein the transaction request meets the criteria based on the logic, and wherein the method further comprises transmitting, by the computing system, a second text message to the mobile computing device indicating that the transaction request is denied, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the computing system” and “the mobile computing device”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of wherein the transaction request is received from a point-of-sale (POS) terminal, and wherein the method further comprises transmitting, by the computing system, an electronic message to the POS terminal indicating whether the transaction request is denied or approved, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “point-of-sale (POS) terminal” and “the computing system”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 discloses the limitation of wherein the transaction request is for a payment, and wherein the method further comprises transmitting, by the computing system, an electronic message indicating whether the transaction request is denied or approved, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the computing system” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of wherein the electronic message indicating whether the transaction request is denied or approved is transmitted to the mobile computing device, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of wherein the electronic message indicating whether the transaction request is denied or approved is transmitted to a POS terminal through which the payment is being made, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a POS terminal” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of transmitting, by the computing system, to the mobile computing device, a confirmation text message that the logic has been updated, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the computing system” and “the mobile computing device”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of the transaction request having been generated by a POS terminal following presentation of a payment vehicle to the POS terminal, the payment vehicle being associated with the account, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a POS terminal” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 discloses the limitation of receiving, by the computing system, from the mobile computing device, an additional text message indicating the account is to be turned "off'; and in response to receiving the additional text message, updating, by the transaction engine of the computing system, the logic such that the account is deactivated for all subsequent transactions, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the computing system”, “the mobile computing device”, and “the transaction engine”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of receiving, by the computing system, from the mobile computing device, an additional text message indicating the account is to be turned "on"; and in response to receiving the additional text message, updating, by the transaction engine of the computing system, the logic to remove the one or more criteria such that subsequent transaction requests are approved without requiring subsequent authorization from the user of the account, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the computing system”, “the mobile computing device”, and “the transaction engine”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 discloses the limitation of wherein the transaction request is for a payment, and wherein denying the transaction request comprises declining the transaction request such that the payment is not settled by the issuer of the account, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 discloses the limitation of wherein the one or more criteria are indicative of transactions falling within a transaction amount range, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 discloses the limitation of wherein the one or more criteria indicate that transactions conducted at one or more merchants are unauthorized, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 discloses the limitation of wherein the one or more criteria define unauthorized transactions based on a type of goods, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 21 discloses the limitation of wherein the one or more criteria indicate that internet purchases are unauthorized, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 22 discloses the limitation of wherein the criteria indicate transactions in one or more countries are unauthorized, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 23 discloses the limitation of wherein the text message comprises a short message service (SMS) text message, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 25 discloses the limitation of transmit, to the mobile computing device, a confirmation text message that the logic has been updated, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the mobile computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any 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 7-26 are not patent-eligible.
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 of this title, 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 7-14 and 17-26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brandt (20050199714) in view of DeVault (20050027651).
Regarding claim 7, Brandt discloses
a method comprising: receiving, by a computing system of an issuer of an account, a text message from a mobile computing device of a user of the account, the text message including a user-input instruction indicative of one or more criteria defining unauthorized transactions corresponding to the account;
(“[0033] In one embodiment using a threshold rule, the payment card holder 12 can use the communication device 34 to send a message, such as an SMS message, to the payment card transaction and notification system 36 to pre-approve a large expenditure amount over a threshold he/she had set. For instance, the payment card holder 12 may have a $100 limit on all purchases, but pre-approves a $10,000 limit for the purchase of a plasma-screen television. In this way, the payment card transaction notification and authorization system 36 acts to increase a purchase limit threshold for the payment card 10 based on a message received from the payment card holder 12”).
receiving, by the computing system, a transaction request corresponding to the account
(“[0011] As indicated by block 14, the method comprises an individual 16 attempting a transaction using the payment card 10. The individual 16 may comprise the payment card holder 12, someone authorized by the payment card holder 12 to pay for one or more transaction using the payment card 10, or someone unauthorized by the payment card holder 12 to make any transaction using the payment card 10. An example of an authorized individual is the holder's 12 son or daughter. An example of an unauthorized individual is someone who stole the payment card 10 or is otherwise fraudulently using an account number of the payment card 10”).
determining, by the computing system, based on the logic, whether the transaction request meets the criteria defining unauthorized transactions for the account; and in response to determining that the transaction request meets the criteria based on the logic, denying, by the computing system, the transaction request, or in response to determining that the transaction request does not meet the criteria based on the logic, approving, by the computing system, the transaction request
(“[0032] As another option, the transaction notification and authorization system 36 can apply threshold-based rules for notification to the payment card holder 12. Examples of the rules include, but are not limited to: notify if a purchase amount exceeds a threshold (e.g. in dollars); notify by a type of merchant (e.g. for food, gas, retail, Internet); notify if usage exceeds a threshold in a time period (e.g. this is the fifth purchase today); notify if usage occurs in a time window (e.g. between 11:00 PM and 5:00 AM); and notify if the credit limit will be exceeded by the attempted transaction”).
Brandt does not disclose, however, DeVault teaches
updating, by a transaction engine of the computing system, logic associated with the account to indicate that transaction requests meeting the one or more criteria are to be blocked and transaction requests not meeting the one or more criteria are to be approved without requiring subsequent authorization from the user of the account
(“[0140] FIG. 17 shows the Approval Process. The Approvals process allows the user to create an approval policy for requiring certain loan transactions to obtain certain approval types by specifying the type of approval needed and imposing rules specific to each approval type. Within Approval, requests may be generating using the imbedded Perform Approvals 1 functions on the display screens which allow approvals to occur within the Application Frame system. Additional functions supported by Approval include View Amendments 2, Add/Update Amendments 3 and Generate Email Approval Requests 4. The Approval process is comprised of an Approval 5 screen that manages the initial approval process, a set of Amendment screens that are used to process amendments after initial approval and Email screens that support requesting an approval from a senior approver”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to modify Brandt to include updating, by a transaction engine of the computing system, logic associated with the account to indicate that transaction requests meeting the one or more criteria are to be blocked and transaction requests not meeting the one or more criteria are to be approved without requiring subsequent authorization from the user of the account as taught by DeVault to provide a system with single point of entry to have the user’s wish/instruction enter once and the system customized to continually execute future recuring task. See [0010] As described above, the institutional transaction process being a transaction-based system involves a number of different systems and individuals performing a specific task on the transaction at any given time... It would be beneficial to create a single point of entry for a user to organize the various resources he interacts with and simplify the job of executing each task that routinely arises. In addition, it would be helpful if the single point of entry was customizable to each individual user allowing him to see the items which may be of most importance to him.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
wherein the transaction request meets the criteria based on the logic, and wherein the method further comprises transmitting, by the computing system, a second text message to the mobile computing device indicating that the transaction request is denied
(“[0032] As another option, the transaction notification and authorization system 36 can apply threshold-based rules for notification to the payment card holder 12”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
wherein the transaction request is received from a point-of-sale (POS) terminal, and wherein the method further comprises transmitting, by the computing system, an electronic message to the POS terminal indicating whether the transaction request is denied or approved
(“[0014] The payment card transaction notification and authorization system 36 communicates with the communication device 34 and the transaction terminal 24 via one or more telecommunication networks 40. Examples of the one or more telecommunication networks 40 include, but are not limited to, a landline telephone system, a wireless telephone system, a satellite telecommunication system, a digital subscriber line network, and the Internet”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
wherein the transaction request is for a payment, and wherein the method further comprises transmitting, by the computing system, an electronic message indicating whether the transaction request is denied or approved
(“[0014] The payment card transaction notification and authorization system 36 communicates with the communication device 34 and the transaction terminal 24 via one or more telecommunication networks 40. Examples of the one or more telecommunication networks 40 include, but are not limited to, a landline telephone system, a wireless telephone system, a satellite telecommunication system, a digital subscriber line network, and the Internet”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
wherein the electronic message indicating whether the transaction request is denied or approved is transmitted to the mobile computing device
(“[0032] As another option, the transaction notification and authorization system 36 can apply threshold-based rules for notification to the payment card holder 12”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
wherein the electronic message indicating whether the transaction request is denied or approved is transmitted to a POS terminal through which the payment is being made
(“[0014] The payment card transaction notification and authorization system 36 communicates with the communication device 34 and the transaction terminal 24 via one or more telecommunication networks 40. Examples of the one or more telecommunication networks 40 include, but are not limited to, a landline telephone system, a wireless telephone system, a satellite telecommunication system, a digital subscriber line network, and the Internet”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
transmitting, by the computing system, to the mobile computing device, a confirmation text message that the [logic has been updated].
(“[0032] As another option, the transaction notification and authorization system 36 can apply threshold-based rules for notification to the payment card holder 12”).
Brandt does not disclose, however, DeVault further discloses
[logic has been updated]
(“[0140] FIG. 17 shows the Approval Process. The Approvals process allows the user to create an approval policy for requiring certain loan transactions to obtain certain approval types by specifying the type of approval needed and imposing rules specific to each approval type. Within Approval, requests may be generating using the imbedded Perform Approvals 1 functions on the display screens which allow approvals to occur within the Application Frame system. Additional functions supported by Approval include View Amendments 2, Add/Update Amendments 3 and Generate Email Approval Requests 4. The Approval process is comprised of an Approval 5 screen that manages the initial approval process, a set of Amendment screens that are used to process amendments after initial approval and Email screens that support requesting an approval from a senior approver”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to modify Brandt to include [logic has been updated] as taught by DeVault to provide a system with single point of entry to have the user’s wish/instruction enter once and the system customized to continually execute future recuring task. See [0010] As described above, the institutional transaction process being a transaction-based system involves a number of different systems and individuals performing a specific task on the transaction at any given time... It would be beneficial to create a single point of entry for a user to organize the various resources he interacts with and simplify the job of executing each task that routinely arises. In addition, it would be helpful if the single point of entry was customizable to each individual user allowing him to see the items which may be of most importance to him.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
the transaction request having been generated by a POS terminal following presentation of a payment vehicle to the POS terminal, the payment vehicle being associated with the account
(“[0013] As indicated by block 30, the method comprises providing a notification message 32 to the payment card holder 12 of the attempted transaction using his/her payment card 10. The notification message 32 is provided to a communication device 34 of the holder 12 in either real-time or near-real-time by a payment card transaction notification and authorization system 36 in communication with the transaction terminal”).
(“[0028] Two more examples of using embodiments of the present invention are as follows. The payment card holder 12 uses her debit card 10 to pay for groceries. The cashier totals her purchase using the transaction terminal 24 and swipes her debit card 10 using the card reader 22. While the groceries are being bagged, a two-way pager or wireless phone of the holder 12 vibrates to alert of an incoming message from the card issuer”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
wherein the transaction request is for a payment, and wherein denying the transaction request comprises declining the transaction request such that the payment is not settled by the issuer of the account
(“[0029] The card issuer locks the account, declines to authorize the purchase, and notifies the clerk that fraud is in progress”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
wherein the one or more criteria are indicative of transactions falling within a transaction amount range
(“[0032] As another option, the transaction notification and authorization system 36 can apply threshold-based rules for notification to the payment card holder 12. Examples of the rules include, but are not limited to: notify if a purchase amount exceeds a threshold (e.g. in dollars)”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
wherein the one or more criteria indicate that transactions conducted at one or more merchants are unauthorized
(“[0032] As another option, the transaction notification and authorization system 36 can apply threshold-based rules for notification to the payment card holder 12. Examples of the rules include, but are not limited to… notify by a type of merchant (e.g. for food, gas, retail, Internet)”).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
wherein the one or more criteria define unauthorized transactions based on a type of goods
(“[0032] As another option, the transaction notification and authorization system 36 can apply threshold-based rules for notification to the payment card holder 12. Examples of the rules include, but are not limited to notify by a type of merchant (e.g. for food, gas, retail, Internet)”).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
wherein the one or more criteria indicate that internet purchases are unauthorized
(“[0032] As another option, the transaction notification and authorization system 36 can apply threshold-based rules for notification to the payment card holder 12. Examples of the rules include, but are not limited to… notify by a type of merchant (e.g. for food, gas, retail, Internet)”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
wherein the criteria indicate transactions in one or more countries are unauthorized
(“ [0015] The notification message 32 indicates any combination of date and time of the attempted transaction, all or part of a number of the payment card 10 (e.g. the part being the last four digits of the number), a name of the merchant 20, an identifier of the merchant 20, a location of the merchant 20 (e.g. address, city, state and postal code), a register number to identify the transaction terminal 24, and an amount (e.g. in dollars) of the attempted transaction”).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Brandt and DeVault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
Brandt further discloses
wherein the text message comprises a short message service (SMS) text message
(“[0033] In one embodiment using a threshold rule, the payment card holder 12 can use the communication device 34 to send a message, such as an SMS message, to the payment card transaction and notification system”).
Claim 24 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 25 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 13.
Claim 26 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Madhok (20060059110) teaches system and method for detecting card fraud.
Slonecker (7383988) teaches system and method for locking and unlocking a financial account card.
Koraichi (8737964) teaches facilitating and authenticating transactions.
Bornhofen (8918338) teaches method and system for the issuance of instant credit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693