DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Comments Relating to 35 U.S.C. 101 Eligibility
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims are eligible in light of the PTAB holding in the parent’s claims. The instant claimed invention is a continuation of 17085277. More importantly, the instant invention claims are similar to 17085277. See, e.g., claim 1 comparison below:
1. A method of authenticating a transfer request, comprising:
receiving, by a server system over a network, a transfer request from a client device, the transfer request comprising an originating account, a target account, and a monetary amount to be transferred from the originating account to the target account;
determining, by the server system, that the monetary amount specified in the transfer request exceeds a threshold amount;
based on the determining, initiating, by the server system, an authentication process to verify the transfer request, comprising:
identifying a current location of the client device, wherein the current location is based on at least one of geolocation information associated with the client device, transaction history of the originating account, an address associated with the originating account, or an address associated with the target account;
identifying a terminal proximate to the client device based on the current location of the client device; and
prompting a user of the client device to authenticate the transfer request at the identified terminal by transferring a message to the client device for displayed thereon;
receiving, by the server system over a further network from the terminal, an authentication attempt of the user;
determining, by the server system, that the authentication attempt is valid; and
based on determining that the authentication attempt is valid, processing, by the server system, the transfer request initiated at the client device.
PTAB decided 17085277 met the 35 USC 101 patentability requirement because the claimed invention:
(1) “is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention”;
(2) relates to “preventing fraud in a banking transaction” and “is a fundamental economic practice that humans have performed for hundreds of years, it is one certain method of organizing human activity, and, thus, an abstract idea”; and
(3) “the additional elements of claim 1 (a server system, a network, a client device, an automated teller machine (examiner notes that the ATM is replaced by “terminal” in the current claimed invention), the server system over a further network from the ATM) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application”, explaining that “the additional elements impose a meaningful limitation and integrate the abstract idea of preventing fraud in a banking transaction into a practical application by improving the authentication process and increasing security in a banking transaction-a technology improvement”.
The PTAB also cited the specification in its reasoning: “Our determination is supported by the Specification, which describes the deficiencies of the existing banking transaction, and a technology improvement of the invented authentication process, which results in increased security in the banking transaction” Specification, Paragraph 3, 44-34.
The PTAB concluded that “additional elements of claim 1 integrate the abstract idea (preventing fraud in a banking transaction) into a practical application, we determine claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea”.
Therefore, the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1, 3, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (20150178726) in view of DeLuca (20160078416).
Regarding claim 1, Wen discloses
a method of authenticating a transfer request, comprising: receiving, by a server system over a network, a transfer request from a client device, the transfer request comprising an originating account, a target account, and a monetary amount to be transferred from the originating account to the target account
([0033] The present application proposes a method of an authentication server processing mobile payment authentication request from a mobile terminal. As shown in FIG. 1, the method comprises the following steps:
[0034] Step S101, the authentication server receives the payment request from the requesting terminal.
[0035] The payment request includes payment information, such as product information, payment amount, the source of goods and bank account information, payment password and so on. When a user purchases a product through a mobile terminal while browsing the product on the mobile terminal, he can click on the "Buy Now" icon as shown in FIG. 2A).
PNG
media_image1.png
728
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining, by the server system, that the monetary amount specified in the transfer request exceeds a threshold amount
([0037] Upon receiving the payment request sent by the requesting terminal, the server determines whether the payment request satisfies predefined authentication conditions. For example, the authentication condition may be that when the payment amount exceeds a predetermined threshold (e.g., $1000), there is a need for authentication).
prompting a user of the client device to authenticate the transfer request at the identified terminal by transferring a message to the client device for displayed thereon; receiving, by the server system over a further network from the terminal, an authentication attempt of the user; determining, by the server system, that the authentication attempt is valid
([0033] The present application proposes a method of an authentication server processing mobile payment authentication request from a mobile terminal. As shown in FIG. 1, the method comprises the following steps:
[0034] Step S101, the authentication server receives the payment request from the requesting terminal.
[0035] The payment request includes payment information, such as product information, payment amount, the source of goods and bank account information, payment password and so on. When a user purchases a product through a mobile terminal while browsing the product on the mobile terminal, he can click on the "Buy Now" icon as shown in FIG. 2A).
PNG
media_image1.png
728
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
based on determining that the authentication attempt is valid, processing, by the server system, the transfer request initiated at the client device
See FIG. 1 Item S104, initiating settlement process once authentication process succeeds.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wen does not disclose, however, DeLuca teaches
based on the determining, initiating, by the server system, an authentication process to verify the transfer request, comprising: identifying a current location of the client device, wherein the current location is based on at least one of geolocation information associated with the client device, transaction history of the originating account, an address associated with the originating account, or an address associated with the target account; identifying a terminal proximate to the client device based on the current location of the client device
(“[0028] Location processor 106 may search for mobile ATMs 104 and/or runners 105 that are within a certain distance of the location associated with the location data from user device 102. Location processor 106 may constantly receive updated location data from mobile ATM 104 and/or runner system 105. Location processor 106 may search for a mobile ATM 104 that is closest to the location data from user device 102 by comparing location data from user device 102 with location data from mobile ATM 104... If the customer's requested amount for withdrawal/deposit exceeds a predetermined limit (e.g., $500), location processor 106 may only search for mobile ATMs (such as mobile ATM 104), and not runners (such as runner system 105)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wen to include based on the determining, initiating, by the server system, an authentication process to verify the transfer request, comprising: identifying a current location of the client device, wherein the current location is based on at least one of geolocation information associated with the client device, transaction history of the originating account, an address associated with the originating account, or an address associated with the target account; identifying a terminal proximate to the client device based on the current location of the client device as taught by DeLuca to direct user to the closest terminal/ATM to facilitate financial transaction when the transaction amount exceed a predetermined amount – see (“[0028] Location processor 106 may search for mobile ATMs 104 and/or runners 105 that are within a certain distance of the location associated with the location data from user device 102. Location processor 106 may constantly receive updated location data from mobile ATM 104 and/or runner system 105. Location processor 106 may search for a mobile ATM 104 that is closest to the location data from user device 102 by comparing location data from user device 102 with location data from mobile ATM 104... If the customer's requested amount for withdrawal/deposit exceeds a predetermined limit (e.g., $500), location processor 106 may only search for mobile ATMs (such as mobile ATM 104)”.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wen and DeLuca, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Wen does not disclose, however, DeLuca further discloses
identifying address information associated with the user; querying a database to identify one or more candidate terminals proximate to the identified address information; and selecting a candidate terminal of the one or more candidate terminals as the terminal
(“[0028] Location processor 106 may search for mobile ATMs 104 and/or runners 105 that are within a certain distance of the location associated with the location data from user device 102. Location processor 106 may constantly receive updated location data from mobile ATM 104 and/or runner system 105. Location processor 106 may search for a mobile ATM 104 that is closest to the location data from user device 102 by comparing location data from user device 102 with location data from mobile ATM 104”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wen to include identifying address information associated with the user; querying a database to identify one or more candidate terminals proximate to the identified address information; and selecting a candidate terminal of the one or more candidate terminals as the terminal as taught by Y3 to direct user to the closest terminal/ATM to facilitate financial transaction when the transaction amount exceed a predetermined amount – see (“[0028] Location processor 106 may search for mobile ATMs 104 and/or runners 105 that are within a certain distance of the location associated with the location data from user device 102. Location processor 106 may constantly receive updated location data from mobile ATM 104 and/or runner system 105. Location processor 106 may search for a mobile ATM 104 that is closest to the location data from user device 102 by comparing location data from user device 102 with location data from mobile ATM 104… If the customer's requested amount for withdrawal/deposit exceeds a predetermined limit (e.g., $500), location processor 106 may only search for mobile ATMs (such as mobile ATM 104)”.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wen and DeLuca, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Wen further discloses
defining a time period during which the user is to authenticate the transfer request
([0037] Upon receiving the payment request sent by the requesting terminal, the server determines whether the payment request satisfies predefined authentication conditions... Other authentication conditions include that the total amount of payment initiated by the requesting terminal exceeds a predefined limit within a predefined time window… the time difference between the previous payment request and the current payment request is longer than a predefined threshold).
Claim 8 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 12.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 2, 4-5, 9, and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of DeLuca, further in view of and Cai (20070203835).
Regarding claim 2, Wen does not disclose, but Cai teaches
referencing one or more preferences stored in an account of the user; identifying that the user has specified the terminal as a preferred authentication terminal; and selecting the specified terminal as the terminal to route the user
([0004] The above problem is substantially alleviated and a contribution is made over the prior art in accordance with this invention wherein a customer identifies an ATM and transmits information concerning a transaction to a telephony service provider network via a wireless telephone; the telephony service provider network communicates with a financial network for accomplishing the financial transaction. The customer can use a wireless device to perform financial transactions using telephony accounts, control withdrawal of cash from his/her prepaid account; with an interface between the telephone network and financial network, the ATM can provide cash withdraw from the prepaid account… Advantageously, using these arrangements the customer can specify an ATM transaction using the wireless device and can receive the type of sophisticated guidance (e.g., menus) made possible through an interaction over the telephony service provider network with a server).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to have modified Wen to include referencing one or more preferences stored in an account of the user; identifying that the user has specified the terminal as a preferred authentication terminal; and selecting the specified terminal as the terminal to route the user based on the teaching of Cai. The motivation to combine the feature of Wen with the embodiment of Cai being to allow customer to identify the preferred ATM to use to facilitate customer satisfaction. See “[0004] The above problem is substantially alleviated and a contribution is made over the prior art in accordance with this invention wherein a customer identifies an ATM and transmits information concerning a transaction to a telephony service provider network via a wireless telephone”.
Claim 4 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Wen does not disclose, but Cai teaches
accessing one or more preferences stored in an account of the user; and identifying the threshold amount as defined by the user
([0016] The application server and the payment server verify the subscriber input request data including a check with the customer's bank 42 to see if the customer's account has an adequate balance to meet the cash withdrawal request (action block 213). The application server then sends a transaction query to the bank 44 connected to the identified ATM (action block 215)).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to have modified Wen to include accessing one or more preferences stored in an account of the user; and identifying the threshold amount as defined by the user based on the teaching of Cai. The motivation to combine the feature of Wen with the embodiment of Cai being to allow customer to identify the amount available to facilitate customer satisfaction. See “[0004] wherein a customer identifies an ATM and transmits information concerning a transaction to a telephony service provider network via a wireless telephone. And [0016] The application server and the payment server verify the subscriber input request data including a check with the customer's bank 42 to see if the customer's account has an adequate balance to meet the cash withdrawal request ”.
Claim 9 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of DeLuca, further in view of and Xu (20170352015).
Regarding claim 7, Wen does not disclose
receiving a video stream that includes video of the user performing the authentication attempt.
Xu teaches
receiving a video stream that includes video of the user performing the authentication attempt
([0005] According to an exemplary embodiment of the claimed invention, a method of preventing fraud and theft during automated teller machine (ATM) transactions is disclosed. The method includes recording a video stream using a camera mounted on or near the ATM, the camera being positioned to record the face of a user of the ATM and a background behind the user).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to have modified Wen to include
receiving a video stream that includes video of the user performing the authentication attempt based on the teaching of Xu.
The motivation to combine the feature of Wen with the embodiment of Xu being to preventing fraud and theft during automated teller machine (ATM) transactions by recording a video stream using a camera mounted on or near the ATM and providing a facial model database containing images – See paragraph 5 “preventing fraud and theft during automated teller machine (ATM) transactions is disclosed. The method includes recording a video stream using a camera mounted on or near the ATM, the camera being positioned to record the face of a user of the ATM and a background behind the user, providing a facial model database containing images of a large number of people taken from different angles, the facial model database containing images of unobscured faces as well as obscured faces, and receiving insertion of a bank card into the ATM”.
Claim 14 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.
Dorsch (10467604) teaches ATM transaction with a mobile device.
Cole (20100174646) teaches person-to-person funds transfer.
Raquepaw (20210027295) teaches system and method for implementing cardless authentication.
Wadhwa (11042852) teaches sender authenticated remittance via an automatic teller machine.
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
Prosecution Insights